Search (1021 results, page 1 of 52)

0.10694631 = sum of:
  0.017032638 = product of:
    0.06813055 = sum of:
      0.06813055 = weight(_text_:authors in 779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06813055 = score(doc=779,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 779, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=779)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08991367 = product of:
    0.17982735 = sum of:
      0.17982735 = weight(_text_:c.h in 779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17982735 = score(doc=779,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.49098146 = fieldWeight in 779, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=779)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization faces the challenge of contributing to the management of the amount of knowledge produced and available in the Web environment. Computational ontologies are new artifacts for knowledge recording and processing and also one of the foundations of the semantic web; they pose new challenges to knowledge organization in clarifying its interdisciplinary relations and specific role within knowledge management disciplines. What are its relations to ontology? A draft of these relations is presented, obtained from authors who discuss foundational issues, with the aim of identifying the actual role of knowledge organization in the Web environment. While ontology discusses the ultimate nature of being, knowledge organization emphasizes additional practical issues unfolding all possible manifestations of that which is. A primary question is: how to seek information, how to be informed?

0.09167814 = product of:
  0.18335629 = sum of:
    0.18335629 = sum of:
      0.14985612 = weight(_text_:c.h in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14985612 = score(doc=2829,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.4091512 = fieldWeight in 2829, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2829)
      0.033500165 = weight(_text_:22 in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033500165 = score(doc=2829,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2829, 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=2829)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 3.2016 13:17:22

0.06903137 = product of:
  0.13806275 = sum of:
    0.13806275 = sum of:
      0.10489928 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10489928 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.28640583 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
      0.03316347 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03316347 = score(doc=4066,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Kommentare: "Keine leichte Lektüre, doch wer auf den Horizont blickt, kann diesen auch erweitern." (Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, vorwärts.de, Lesetipp von SPD Spitzenpolitikern, 15. August 2017) "Das beste Buch dieses Frühjahrs." (Thorsten Giersch, Carina Kontio, Handelsblatt online, 29. Juni 2017) "Ein Sachbuch, so anregend, dass man dazu tanzen möchte!" (Denis Scheck, ARD Druckfrisch, 2. Juli 2017) "A thoughtful look of what may be in store for humanity (...). It is a deeply engaging book with lots of stimulating ideas (...). It makes you think about the future, which is another way of saying it makes you think about the present." (Bill Gates, via Facebook, 4. Juni 2017) "Yuval Noah Harari's insights are compelling." (Paul Collier, TLS, 25. November 2016 ) "Challenging, readable and thought-provoking." (Bill Gates, Gates Notes, Bill Gates' Sommer-Buchtipps, 22. Mai 2017) "Man sollte alle Geschichtslehrer von Harari coachen lassen." (Christian Jostmann, Die Furche, 20. April 2017) "Vielleicht brauchen wir ja düstere Szenarien, wie Hararis Buch 'Homo Deus', um den Mut für neue Utopien zu finden." (Sven Waskönig, ARD ttt, 30. April 2017)
"In einer verblüffenden Tour d'Horizon durch die Menschheitsgeschichte beschreibt Harari, wie der Mensch in einem Akt wachsender Selbstermächtigung zum Homo Deus avanciert." (Adrian Lobe, Zeit Online, 10. April 2017) "(Harari) hat ein anmaßendes Buch geschrieben. Und ein aufregendes." (Erik Raidt, Stuttgarter Nachrichten Online, 31. März 2017) "Intelligent, scharfsinnig und manchmal sogar überraschend witzig (...) eröffnet einen ganz anderen Blick auf Geschichte." (Klaus Bittermann, taz literataz, 22. März 2017) "Überraschend, informativ, abwechslungsreich und leicht zu lesen." (Hildegard Lorenz, Münchner Merkur, 21. März 2017) "Sehen, wie die Welt ist, ohne auf die Bremse zu treten. Das ist der Sound von Yuval Noah Hararis 'Homo Deus'." (Adolf Holl, Die Presse, 18. März 2017) "Hararis packendes Buch ist ein Bekenntnis zum Humanismus." (Thomas Vasek, P.M., 10. März 2017) "Überaus anregende und fesselnde Lektüre." (Wolfgang Schneider, SWR2, 19. Februar 2017) "Fulminant, klug und düster." (Deutschlandradio Kultur, März 2017)

Imprint

München : C.H. Beck

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Harari, Y.N.: Homo deus: eine Geschichte von Morgen. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von Andreas Wirthensohn. München: C.H. Beck 2017.

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=4929,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 4929, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.059942447 = product of:
  0.11988489 = sum of:
    0.11988489 = product of:
      0.23976979 = sum of:
        0.23976979 = weight(_text_:c.h in 4946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23976979 = score(doc=4946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.6546419 = fieldWeight in 4946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05890689 = product of:
  0.11781378 = sum of:
    0.11781378 = product of:
      0.47125512 = sum of:
        0.47125512 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.47125512 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41925266 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = 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.

0.056896396 = sum of:
  0.040146314 = product of:
    0.16058525 = sum of:
      0.16058525 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16058525 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = 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)
  0.016750082 = product of:
    0.033500165 = sum of:
      0.033500165 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033500165 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = 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

0.05303488 = sum of:
  0.01987141 = product of:
    0.07948564 = sum of:
      0.07948564 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07948564 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = 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)
  0.03316347 = product of:
    0.06632694 = sum of:
      0.06632694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06632694 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = 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

0.05251362 = sum of:
  0.024087789 = product of:
    0.096351154 = sum of:
      0.096351154 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.096351154 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028425833 = product of:
    0.056851666 = sum of:
      0.056851666 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056851666 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.05244964 = product of:
  0.10489928 = sum of:
    0.10489928 = product of:
      0.20979856 = sum of:
        0.20979856 = weight(_text_:c.h in 3503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20979856 = score(doc=3503,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36626098 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = queryNorm
            0.57281166 = fieldWeight in 3503, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3503)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.051552534 = sum of:
  0.028102418 = product of:
    0.11240967 = sum of:
      0.11240967 = weight(_text_:authors in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11240967 = score(doc=2600,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023450114 = product of:
    0.046900228 = sum of:
      0.046900228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046900228 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.051517807 = sum of:
  0.034767725 = product of:
    0.1390709 = sum of:
      0.1390709 = weight(_text_:authors in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1390709 = score(doc=823,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016750082 = product of:
    0.033500165 = sum of:
      0.033500165 = weight(_text_:22 in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033500165 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 823, 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=823)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aiming at contributing to the epistemological characterization of the area of knowledge organization, our goal is to analyze the KO journal, since its creation in 1993, as a knowledge domain, from a nuclear community of the most productive and greater impact authors, analyzing the dialogue among citing authors and cited ones, and also the co-citations established by the citing authors. We worked with a corpus of 310 articles published between 1993 and 2011 produced by a total of 360 authors. The relatively more productive authors, a group geographically concentrated in Europe (37%), North America (44%) and Asia (19%), is clearly explained by the historical European origin of the ISKO and by an increasing North American presence along the years. Of the 33 most cited authors, 22 were co-cited in at least 6 works, which suggests that they are the theoretical referential nucleus of the area, in the studied journal. Finally, we observe that the area reveals theme cohesion and coherence in its production, enabling us to clearly visualize its theoretical referential nucleus and to confirm the role performed by the KO magazine as a catalyzing agent of international theoretical construction in the area.

0.04960149 = sum of:
  0.029501395 = product of:
    0.11800558 = sum of:
      0.11800558 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11800558 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020100096 = product of:
    0.040200192 = sum of:
      0.040200192 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040200192 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.04960149 = sum of:
  0.029501395 = product of:
    0.11800558 = sum of:
      0.11800558 = weight(_text_:authors in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11800558 = score(doc=2925,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2925, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2925)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020100096 = product of:
    0.040200192 = sum of:
      0.040200192 = weight(_text_:22 in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040200192 = score(doc=2925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2925, 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=2925)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we use a stated choice experiment to study researcher preferences in the information sciences and to investigate the relative importance of different journal characteristics in convincing potential authors to submit to a particular journal. The analysis distinguishes high quality from standard quality articles and focuses on the question whether communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates leads to other submission decisions. Our results show that a positive framing effect might be present when authors decide on submitting a high quality article. No evidence of a framing effect is found when authors consider a standard quality article. From a journal marketing perspective, this is important information for editors. Communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates might help to convince researchers to submit to their journal.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:02:22

0.049089078 = product of:
  0.098178156 = sum of:
    0.098178156 = product of:
      0.39271262 = sum of:
        0.39271262 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39271262 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41925266 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049451772 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.04827269 = sum of:
  0.024584498 = product of:
    0.09833799 = sum of:
      0.09833799 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09833799 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22544144 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023688192 = product of:
    0.047376383 = sum of:
      0.047376383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047376383 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17317168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049451772 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23