Search (2520 results, page 1 of 126)

0.118645705 = sum of:
  0.099929616 = product of:
    0.39971846 = sum of:
      0.39971846 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.39971846 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018716091 = product of:
    0.056148272 = sum of:
      0.056148272 = weight(_text_:j in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056148272 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.08644426 = product of:
  0.17288852 = sum of:
    0.17288852 = sum of:
      0.04854466 = weight(_text_:h in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04854466 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
      0.056148272 = weight(_text_:j in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056148272 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
      0.06819558 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06819558 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Sokol, J.: Spielend lernen. In: Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.11, S.72-76.

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.08127782 = sum of:
  0.06995073 = product of:
    0.27980292 = sum of:
      0.27980292 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27980292 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, 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=5955)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011327088 = product of:
    0.033981264 = sum of:
      0.033981264 = weight(_text_:h in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033981264 = score(doc=5955,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.079335056 = product of:
  0.15867011 = sum of:
    0.15867011 = sum of:
      0.03432626 = weight(_text_:h in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03432626 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
      0.056148272 = weight(_text_:j in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056148272 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
      0.06819558 = weight(_text_:22 in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06819558 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-3/iwp-2012-0041/iwp-2012-0041.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 7.2012 19:37:29

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.203-205

0.079335056 = product of:
  0.15867011 = sum of:
    0.15867011 = sum of:
      0.03432626 = weight(_text_:h in 658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03432626 = score(doc=658,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 658, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=658)
      0.056148272 = weight(_text_:j in 658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056148272 = score(doc=658,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 658, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=658)
      0.06819558 = weight(_text_:22 in 658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06819558 = score(doc=658,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 658, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=658)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0003/iwp-2013-0003.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 3.2013 16:08:18

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.39-48

0.079335056 = product of:
  0.15867011 = sum of:
    0.15867011 = sum of:
      0.03432626 = weight(_text_:h in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03432626 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.056148272 = weight(_text_:j in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056148272 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.06819558 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06819558 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 16:55:48

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.3, S.72-77

0.07118742 = sum of:
  0.059957765 = product of:
    0.23983106 = sum of:
      0.23983106 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23983106 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011229656 = product of:
    0.033688966 = sum of:
      0.033688966 = weight(_text_:j in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033688966 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.06682301 = sum of:
  0.059957765 = product of:
    0.23983106 = sum of:
      0.23983106 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23983106 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0068652513 = product of:
    0.020595754 = sum of:
      0.020595754 = weight(_text_:h in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020595754 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 73(2020) H.3/4, S.496-503

0.061860077 = sum of:
  0.04395038 = product of:
    0.17580152 = sum of:
      0.17580152 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17580152 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017909698 = product of:
    0.053729095 = sum of:
      0.053729095 = weight(_text_:h in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053729095 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.

Object

h-index

0.059957765 = product of:
  0.11991553 = sum of:
    0.11991553 = product of:
      0.47966212 = sum of:
        0.47966212 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.47966212 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050333973 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.059322853 = sum of:
  0.049964808 = product of:
    0.19985923 = sum of:
      0.19985923 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19985923 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42673197 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.009358046 = product of:
    0.028074136 = sum of:
      0.028074136 = weight(_text_:j in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028074136 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.05884377 = product of:
  0.11768754 = sum of:
    0.11768754 = sum of:
      0.029126795 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029126795 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.047643393 = weight(_text_:j in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047643393 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.040917348 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040917348 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-3/iwp-2012-0037/iwp-2012-0037.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 7.2012 19:35:26

Footnote

Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182

0.058027133 = product of:
  0.11605427 = sum of:
    0.11605427 = product of:
      0.1740814 = sum of:
        0.07860758 = weight(_text_:j in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07860758 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050333973 = queryNorm
            0.4914939 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
        0.09547382 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09547382 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050333973 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, 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=1601)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.056075297 = product of:
  0.112150595 = sum of:
    0.112150595 = sum of:
      0.020595754 = weight(_text_:h in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020595754 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.033688966 = weight(_text_:j in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033688966 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.057865873 = weight(_text_:22 in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057865873 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 657, 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=657)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0006/iwp-2013-0006.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 3.2013 14:05:39

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.9-22

0.05576252 = sum of:
  0.044396587 = product of:
    0.17758635 = sum of:
      0.17758635 = weight(_text_:author's in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17758635 = score(doc=5491,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011365931 = product of:
    0.03409779 = sum of:
      0.03409779 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03409779 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22

0.05553454 = product of:
  0.11106908 = sum of:
    0.11106908 = sum of:
      0.024028381 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024028381 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.03930379 = weight(_text_:j in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03930379 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.04773691 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04773691 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Eine englische Version dieses Beitrags erscheint unter dem Titel "International visibility of European and in particular German language publications in library and information science" im Tagungsband des 13. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013). Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0001/iwp-2013-0001.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 3.2013 14:04:09

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8

0.05140226 = sum of:
  0.037671756 = product of:
    0.15068702 = sum of:
      0.15068702 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15068702 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013730503 = product of:
    0.041191507 = sum of:
      0.041191507 = weight(_text_:h in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041191507 = score(doc=977,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1250522 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In one of the first attempts at providing a mathematical framework for the Hirsch index, Egghe and Rousseau (2006) assumed the standard Lotka model for an author's citation distribution to derive a delightfully simple closed formula for his/her h-index. More recently, the same authors (Egghe & Rousseau, 2012b) have presented a new (implicit) formula based on the so-called shifted Lotka function to allow for the objection that the original model makes no allowance for papers receiving zero citations. Here it is shown, through a small empirical study, that the formulae actually give very similar results whether or not the uncited papers are included. However, and more important, it is found that they both seriously underestimate the true h-index, and we suggest that the reason for this is that this is a context-the citation distribution of an author-in which straightforward Lotkaian informetrics is inappropriate. Indeed, the analysis suggests that even if we restrict attention to the upper tail of the citation distribution, a simple Lotka/Pareto-like model can give misleading results.

Object

h-index

0.051310875 = sum of:
  0.037671756 = product of:
    0.15068702 = sum of:
      0.15068702 = weight(_text_:author's in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15068702 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013639117 = product of:
    0.040917348 = sum of:
      0.040917348 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040917348 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.051310875 = sum of:
  0.037671756 = product of:
    0.15068702 = sum of:
      0.15068702 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15068702 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013639117 = product of:
    0.040917348 = sum of:
      0.040917348 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040917348 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.176261 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.048901413 = sum of:
  0.037671756 = product of:
    0.15068702 = sum of:
      0.15068702 = weight(_text_:author's in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15068702 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.338252 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011229656 = product of:
    0.033688966 = sum of:
      0.033688966 = weight(_text_:j in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033688966 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15993603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050333973 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.