Search (1486 results, page 1 of 75)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Denda, K.: Beyond subject headings : a structured information retrieval tool for interdisciplinary fields (2005) 0.18 
    0.18156424 = product of:
  0.36312848 = sum of:
    0.24206336 = weight(_text_:fields in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24206336 = score(doc=1038,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.76591945 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=1038,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.18 
    0.17800082 = product of:
  0.35600165 = sum of:
    0.3041166 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3041166 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  3. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.13 
    0.12968396 = product of:
  0.2593679 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=136,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Althouse, B.M.; West, J.D.; Bergstrom, C.T.; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time (2009) 0.13 
    0.12968396 = product of:
  0.2593679 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=2695,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field-specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross-field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross-field differences in impact factor.
    Date
    23. 2.2009 18:22:28
  5. Price, A.: NOVAGate : a Nordic gateway to electronic resources in the forestry, veterinary and agricultural sciences (2000) 0.12 
    0.11584859 = product of:
  0.23169719 = sum of:
    0.17116463 = weight(_text_:fields in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17116463 = score(doc=4874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5415868 = fieldWeight in 4874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4874)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=4874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4874)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    NOVAGate is a subject-based information gateway covering electronic resources in the agricultural, veterinary and related fields. The service, which opened in July 1998, is produced by the veterinary and agricultural libraries of the 5 Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden - which serve the NOVA University. The gateway covers Nordic and European resources as well as the resources of international organizations, but being planned is a network of subject gateways which will give access to a wide range of international quality resources within the agricultural, veterinary and related fields. The service uses the ROADS software
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:41:00
  6. Bothmann, R.: Cataloging electronic books (2004) 0.12 
    0.11584859 = product of:
  0.23169719 = sum of:
    0.17116463 = weight(_text_:fields in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17116463 = score(doc=129,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5415868 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Papers on the cataloging of electronic resources have focused on electronic journals and Internet resources such as Web sites and not on electronic books. Electronic books are nonserial monographic resources accessed with a computer either directly or remotely. Rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources have changed and continue to change. This article discusses the electronic book as a unique manifestation and provides practical instruction on the application of current cataloging rules. The cataloging elements covered are control fields and variable data fields, including classification, uniform titles, title information, edition information, type and extent of the resource, publication and distribution information, physical description, series statements, notes, and subject analysis.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Fenstermacher, D.A.: Introduction to bioinformatics. (2005) 0.12 
    0.11578524 = product of:
  0.23157048 = sum of:
    0.17968544 = weight(_text_:fields in 5257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17968544 = score(doc=5257,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5685477 = fieldWeight in 5257, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5257)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 5257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=5257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5257)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a multifaceted discipline combining many scientific fields including computational biology, statistics, mathematics, molecular biology, and genetics. Bioinformatics enables biomedical investigators to exploit existing and emerging computational technologies to seamlessly store, mine, retrieve, and analyze data from genomics and proteomics technologies. This is achieved by creating unified data models, standardizing data interfaces, developing structured vocabularies, generating new data visualization methods, and capturing detailed metadata that describes various aspects of the experimental design and analysis methods. Already there are a number of related undertakings that are dividing the field into more specialized groups. Clinical Bioinformatics and Biomedical Informatics are emerging as transitional fields to promote the utilization of genomics and proteomics data combined with medical history and demographic data towards personalized medicine, molecular diagnostics, pharmacogenomics and predicting outcomes of therapeutic interventions. The field of bioinformatics will continue to evolve through the incorporation of diverse technologies and methodologies that draw experts from disparate fields to create the latest computational and informational tools specifically design for the biomedical research enterprise.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:21:27
  8. Jacobs, J.W.; Summers, E.; Ankersen, E.: Cyril: expanding the horizons of MARC21 (2004) 0.10 
    0.10375099 = product of:
  0.20750198 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17
  9. Schrodt, R.: Tiefen und Untiefen im wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch (2008) 0.10 
    0.101372205 = product of:
  0.40548882 = sum of:
    0.40548882 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40548882 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.
  10. Koopmans, N.I.: What's your question? : The need for research information from the perspective of different user groups (2002) 0.10 
    0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this paper results of a field study into the need for research information of different user groups are presented: scientists, policy makers and policy researchers, industry and media. Main questions of semi-structured interviews were: what kind of research information users need, what kind of research information resources are used and which information resources are missing at the moment. User groups are missing for a diversity of reasons the overview of research, experts and institutes in the different scientific fields. Especially for the accessibility and transparency of the scientific world these overviews are reported to be needed. Neither Google nor any of the research institutes or policy research organisations are able to present surveys for different science fields at the moment. Giving users the possibility to search, browse and navigate through accessible and more specialised layers of research information might give answers to different user groups simultaneously.
    Date
    2. 7.2005 12:22:50
  11. Bagheri, M.: Development of thesauri in Iran (2006) 0.10 
    0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.
    Source
    Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22
  12. ChaPudhry, A.S.; Periasamy, M.: ¬A study of current practices of selected libraries in cataloguing electronic journals (2001) 0.09 
    0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=746)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=746)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    MARC records and online policy documents of selected libraries were reviewed to study the approaches taken by libraries worldwide to catalogue electronic journals. In general, libraries catalogue those electronic journals that are subscribed by them on priority basis. Most of them annotate the e-journal to the print record, some prefer to catalogue them separately, while the majority of the libraries adopt both approaches. While most of the libraries studied prefer full record, cataloguing e-journals separately with a brief record (at least containing MARC fields 245, 500, and 856) that identifies and locates the resource seems to be the best practice.
    Date
    22. 1.2007 20:46:57
  13. Paolillo, J.C.: Linguistics and the information sciences (2009) 0.09 
    0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Linguistics is the scientific study of language which emphasizes language spoken in everyday settings by human beings. It has a long history of interdisciplinarity, both internally and in contribution to other fields, including information science. A linguistic perspective is beneficial in many ways in information science, since it examines the relationship between the forms of meaningful expressions and their social, cognitive, institutional, and communicative context, these being two perspectives on information that are actively studied, to different degrees, in information science. Examples of issues relevant to information science are presented for which the approach taken under a linguistic perspective is illustrated.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:33
  14. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.09 
    0.08870068 = product of:
  0.35480273 = sum of:
    0.35480273 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35480273 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  15. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.09 
    0.08855899 = product of:
  0.17711797 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.073376544 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073376544 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  16. Zhang, P.; Benjamin, R.I.: Understanding information related fields : a conceptual framework (2007) 0.08 
    0.083706014 = product of:
  0.33482406 = sum of:
    0.33482406 = weight(_text_:fields in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33482406 = score(doc=613,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        1.0594262 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Many scientific fields share common interests for research and education. Yet, very often, these fields do not communicate to each other and are unaware of the work in other fields. Understanding the commonalities and differences among related fields can broaden our understanding of the interested phenomena from various perspectives, better utilize resources, enhance collaboration, and eventually move the related fields forward together. In this article, we present a conceptual framework, namely the Information-Model or I-model, to describe various aspects of information related fields. We consider this a timely effort in light of the evolutions of several information related fields and a set of questions related to the identities of these fields. It is especially timely in defining the newly formed Information Field from a community of twenty some information schools. We posit that the information related fields are built on a number of other fields but with their own unique foci and concerns. That is, core components from other fundamental fields interact and integrate with each other to form dynamic and interesting information related fields that all have to do with information, technology, people, and organization/society. The conceptual framework can have a number of uses. Besides providing a unified view of these related fields, it can be used to examine old case studies, recent research projects, educational programs and curricula concerns, as well as to illustrate the commonalities and differences with the information related fields.
  17. Toldo, L.; Rippmann, F.: Integrated bioinformatics application for automated target discovery. (2005) 0.08 
    0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=5260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=5260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article we present an in silico method that automatically assigns putative functions to DNA sequences. The annotations are at an increasingly conceptual level, up to identifying general biomedical fields to which the sequences could contribute. This bioinformatics data-mining system makes substantial use of several resources: a locally stored MEDLINE® database; a manually built classification system; the MeSH® taxonomy; relational technology; and bioinformatics methods. Knowledge is generated from various data sources by using well-defined semantics, and by exploiting direct links between them. A two-dimensional Concept Map(TM) displays the knowledge graph, which allows causal connections to be followed. The use of this method has been valuable and has saved considerable time in our in-house projects, and can be generally exploited for any sequence-annotation or knowledge-condensation task.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:31:06
  18. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.08 
    0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Russell, B.M.: Looking for someone special : special collections cataloging, 1980-2000 and beyond (2003) 0.08 
    0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The provision of access to materials in special collections intersects the fields of cataloging and special collections librarianship, sharing characteristics and challenges with both. In order to reveal the changing expectations regarding special collections cataloging professionals, the author examined job notices for positions advertised in C&RL News from 1980 to 2000. Three related hypotheses were tested in this study: fixed-term appointments would become more common; published requirements for consideration would be more rigorous; and positions would offer less relative compensation than in the past. These hypotheses were demonstrated to be untrue. In a larger context, the results of this study can be extrapolated to suggest means of improving education and training for professionals in special collections cataloging, highlighting the skills and abilities future employing institutions will be seeking.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. Walters, W.H.: Institutional journal costs in an open access environment (2007) 0.08 
    0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 89) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=89,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 89, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=89)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 89) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=89,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 89, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=89)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study investigates the potential impact of open access pricing on institutional journal expenditures in four subject fields at nine American colleges and universities. Three pricing models are evaluated: the conventional model (the current subscription model), the PLoS open access model (based on the fees currently charged by the Public Library of Science), and the equal-revenue open access model (which maintains current levels of total aggregate spending within each subject field). Because institutional disparities in publishing productivity are far greater than institutional disparities in library holdings, the shift from a subscription-based model to either open access model would bring dramatic cost savings for most colleges and universities. At the same time, a small number of institutions-the top research universities-would pay a far higher proportion of the total aggregate cost.
    Date
    3. 3.2007 19:44:22

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 1246
  • m 169
  • el 69
  • s 63
  • b 26
  • x 13
  • i 10
  • n 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications