-
Olivares-Rodríguez, C.; Guenaga, M.; Garaizar, P.: Using children's search patterns to predict the quality of their creative problem solving (2018)
0.09
0.09383029 = sum of:
0.0211888 = product of:
0.0847552 = sum of:
0.0847552 = weight(_text_:authors in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0847552 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.07264149 = sum of:
0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037279427 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035362065 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a computational model that implicitly predict the children's creative quality of solutions by analyzing the query pattern on a problem-solving-based lesson. Design/methodology/approach A search task related to the competencies acquired in the classroom was applied to automatically measure children' creativity. A blind review process of the creative quality was developed of 255 primary school students' solutions. Findings While there are many creativity training programs that have proven effective, many of these programs require measuring creativity previously which involves time-consuming tasks conducted by experienced reviewers, i.e. far from primary school classroom dynamics. The authors have developed a model that predicts the creative quality of the given solution using the search queries pattern as input. This model has been used to predict the creative quality of 255 primary school students' solutions with 80 percent sensitivity. Research limitations/implications Although the research was conducted with just one search task, participants come from two different countries. Therefore, the authors hope that this model provides detection of non-creative solutions to enable prompt intervention and improve the creative quality of solutions. Originality/value This is the first implicit classification model of query pattern in order to predict the children' creative quality of solutions. This model is based on a conceptual relation between the concept association of creative thinking and query chain model of information search.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013)
0.09
0.08762424 = sum of:
0.014982744 = product of:
0.059930976 = sum of:
0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059930976 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.07264149 = sum of:
0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037279427 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035362065 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
- Abstract
- Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:21:46
-
Pohl, A.; Danowski, P.: Linked Open Data in der Bibliothekswelt : Überblick und Herausforderungen (2015)
0.09
0.08716979 = product of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.089470625 = weight(_text_:p in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089470625 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
0.08486895 = weight(_text_:22 in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08486895 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26. 8.2015 10:22:00
-
Shaw, R.; Golden, P.; Buckland, M.: Using linked library data in working research notes (2015)
0.09
0.08716979 = product of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.089470625 = weight(_text_:p in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089470625 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
0.08486895 = weight(_text_:22 in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08486895 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 15. 1.2016 19:22:28
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.09
0.08716979 = product of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.17433958 = sum of:
0.089470625 = weight(_text_:p in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089470625 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.08486895 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08486895 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
- Source
- International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.08
0.08499622 = sum of:
0.008989646 = product of:
0.035958584 = sum of:
0.035958584 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035958584 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.07600658 = sum of:
0.054789342 = weight(_text_:p in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054789342 = score(doc=3809,freq=12.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.29191923 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.021217238 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217238 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
- Abstract
- This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011)
0.08
0.0802159 = sum of:
0.02542656 = product of:
0.10170624 = sum of:
0.10170624 = weight(_text_:authors in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10170624 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.054789342 = product of:
0.109578684 = sum of:
0.109578684 = weight(_text_:p in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109578684 = score(doc=4349,freq=12.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.58383846 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.
- Object
- P-Rank
-
Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.; White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data (2012)
0.08
0.075064234 = sum of:
0.01695104 = product of:
0.06780416 = sum of:
0.06780416 = weight(_text_:authors in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06780416 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.058113195 = sum of:
0.029823542 = weight(_text_:p in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029823542 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
0.028289651 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028289651 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
- Abstract
- The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.
-
Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017)
0.07
0.07264149 = product of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074558854 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
0.07072413 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07072413 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13.12.2017 14:17:22
-
Kozikowski, P. et al.: Support of part-whole relations in query answering (2016)
0.07
0.07264149 = product of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074558854 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
0.07072413 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07072413 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 2.2016 18:25:22
-
Delahaye, J.-P.: Big brother an der Hintertür (2018)
0.07
0.07264149 = product of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074558854 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.07072413 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07072413 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = 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
-
Häring, N.; Hensinger, P.: "Digitale Bildung" : Der abschüssige Weg zur Konditionierungsanstalt (2019)
0.07
0.07264149 = product of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.14528298 = sum of:
0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074558854 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 4999, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4999)
0.07072413 = weight(_text_:22 in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07072413 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4999, 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=4999)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.2019 11:45:19
-
Ceri, S.; Bozzon, A.; Brambilla, M.; Della Valle, E.; Fraternali, P.; Quarteroni, S.: Web Information Retrieval (2013)
0.07
0.07009939 = sum of:
0.011986194 = product of:
0.047944777 = sum of:
0.047944777 = weight(_text_:authors in 1082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047944777 = score(doc=1082,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 1082, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1082)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.058113195 = sum of:
0.029823542 = weight(_text_:p in 1082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029823542 = score(doc=1082,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 1082, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1082)
0.028289651 = weight(_text_:22 in 1082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028289651 = score(doc=1082,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1082, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1082)
- Abstract
- With the proliferation of huge amounts of (heterogeneous) data on the Web, the importance of information retrieval (IR) has grown considerably over the last few years. Big players in the computer industry, such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, are the primary contributors of technology for fast access to Web-based information; and searching capabilities are now integrated into most information systems, ranging from business management software and customer relationship systems to social networks and mobile phone applications. Ceri and his co-authors aim at taking their readers from the foundations of modern information retrieval to the most advanced challenges of Web IR. To this end, their book is divided into three parts. The first part addresses the principles of IR and provides a systematic and compact description of basic information retrieval techniques (including binary, vector space and probabilistic models as well as natural language search processing) before focusing on its application to the Web. Part two addresses the foundational aspects of Web IR by discussing the general architecture of search engines (with a focus on the crawling and indexing processes), describing link analysis methods (specifically Page Rank and HITS), addressing recommendation and diversification, and finally presenting advertising in search (the main source of revenues for search engines). The third and final part describes advanced aspects of Web search, each chapter providing a self-contained, up-to-date survey on current Web research directions. Topics in this part include meta-search and multi-domain search, semantic search, search in the context of multimedia data, and crowd search. The book is ideally suited to courses on information retrieval, as it covers all Web-independent foundational aspects. Its presentation is self-contained and does not require prior background knowledge. It can also be used in the context of classic courses on data management, allowing the instructor to cover both structured and unstructured data in various formats. Its classroom use is facilitated by a set of slides, which can be downloaded from www.search-computing.org.
- Date
- 16.10.2013 19:22:44
-
Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011)
0.06
0.06218087 = product of:
0.12436174 = sum of:
0.12436174 = product of:
0.49744695 = sum of:
0.49744695 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.49744695 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.44255427 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = 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.
-
Sojka, P.; Liska, M.: ¬The art of mathematics retrieval (2011)
0.06
0.06110226 = product of:
0.12220452 = sum of:
0.12220452 = sum of:
0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052191198 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
0.07001332 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07001332 = score(doc=3450,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl.: DocEng2011, September 19-22, 2011, Mountain View, California, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0863-2/11/09
- Date
- 22. 2.2017 13:00:42
-
Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V.: Costly collaborations : the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers (2016)
0.06
0.061017312 = sum of:
0.0423776 = product of:
0.1695104 = sum of:
0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695104 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.018639714 = product of:
0.037279427 = sum of:
0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037279427 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.
-
Rocchi, P.; Resca, A.: ¬The creativity of authors in defining the concept of information (2018)
0.06
0.061017312 = sum of:
0.0423776 = product of:
0.1695104 = sum of:
0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695104 = score(doc=296,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.018639714 = product of:
0.037279427 = sum of:
0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037279427 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose The concept of information is central to several fields of research and professional practice. So many definitions have been put forward that complete inventory is unachievable while authors have failed to reach a consensus. In the face of the present impasse, innovative proposals could rouse information theorists to action, but literature surveys tend to emphasize the common traits of definitions. Reviewers are inclined to iron out originality in information models; thus the purpose of this paper is to discover the creativity of authors attempting to define the concept of information and to stimulate the progress of studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach Because the present inquiry could be influenced and distorted by personal criteria and opinions, the authors have adopted precise criteria and guidelines. It could be said the present approach approximates a statistical methodology. Findings The findings of this paper include (1) The authors found 32 original definitions of information which sometimes current surveys have overlooked. (2) The authors found a relation between information theories and advances in information technology. (3) Overall, the authors found that researchers take account of a wide variety of perspectives yet overlook the notion of information as used by computing practitioners such as electronic engineers and software developers. Research limitations/implications The authors comment on some limitations of the procedure that was followed. Results 1 and 3 open up new possibilities for theoretical research in the information domain. Originality/value This is an attempt to conduct a bibliographical inquiry driven by objective and scientific criteria; its value lies in the fact that final report has not been influenced by personal choice or arbitrary viewpoints.
-
Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018)
0.06
0.06005863 = sum of:
0.0423776 = product of:
0.1695104 = sum of:
0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695104 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.017681032 = product of:
0.035362065 = sum of:
0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035362065 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.06
0.058113195 = product of:
0.11622639 = sum of:
0.11622639 = sum of:
0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059647083 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056579303 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
-
Soergel, D.: Knowledge organization for learning (2014)
0.06
0.0559825 = sum of:
0.020975841 = product of:
0.083903365 = sum of:
0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.083903365 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.03500666 = product of:
0.07001332 = sum of:
0.07001332 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07001332 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses and illustrates through examples how meaningful or deep learning can be supported through well-structured presentation of material, through giving learners schemas they can use to organize knowledge in their minds, and through helping learners to understand knowledge organization principles they can use to construct their own schemas. It is a call to all authors, educators and information designers to pay attention to meaningful presentation that expresses the internal structure of the domain and facilitates the learner's assimilation of concepts and their relationships.
- Pages
- S.22-32
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
