Search (1294 results, page 1 of 65)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Frâncu, V.; Sabo, C.-N.: Implementation of a UDC-based multilingual thesaurus in a library catalogue : the case of BiblioPhil (2010) 0.13 
    0.13118336 = sum of:
  0.025232634 = product of:
    0.100930534 = sum of:
      0.100930534 = weight(_text_:authors in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100930534 = score(doc=3697,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10595073 = sum of:
    0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06383989 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042110834 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
    Abstract
    In order to enhance the use of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) numbers in information retrieval, the authors have represented classification with multilingual thesaurus descriptors and implemented this solution in an automated way. The authors illustrate a solution implemented in a BiblioPhil library system. The standard formats used are UNIMARC for subject authority records (i.e. the UDC-based multilingual thesaurus) and MARC XML support for data transfer. The multilingual thesaurus was built according to existing standards, the constituent parts of the classification notations being used as the basis for search terms in the multilingual information retrieval. The verbal equivalents, descriptors and non-descriptors, are used to expand the number of concepts and are given in Romanian, English and French. This approach saves the time of the indexer and provides more user-friendly and easier access to the bibliographic information. The multilingual aspect of the thesaurus enhances information access for a greater number of online users
    Date
    22. 7.2010 20:40:56
  2. Sinn, D.; Soares, N.: Historians' use of digital archival collections : the web, historical scholarship, and archival research (2014) 0.10 
    0.10316075 = sum of:
  0.014868473 = product of:
    0.05947389 = sum of:
      0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 1349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05947389 = score(doc=1349,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1349, 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=1349)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08829227 = sum of:
    0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 1349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053199906 = score(doc=1349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1349)
    0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 1349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03509236 = score(doc=1349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1349, 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=1349)
    Abstract
    This article reports a research study about historians' experiences using digital archival collections for research articles that they published in the American Historical Review. We contacted these authors to ask about their research processes, with regard to digital archival collections, and their perceptions of the usefulness of digital archival collections to historical research. This study presents a realistic portrayal of the "uses" and "impacts" of digital primary sources from the perspectives of historians who use digital collections for their research projects. The findings from this study indicate that digital archival collections are important source materials for historical studies for various reasons. However, the amount of authority digital materials possess as historical resources was disputed. Many historians preferred documents in their original form, but historians' preferences began to change as they increasingly consulted digital formats. As the web has developed into an important research platform, historians have adopted different research patterns, one of which is using random web searches to find digital primary sources. Historians' understandings of the "use" of digital archival collections revealed a spectrum of activities including finding, understanding, interpreting, and citing digital information. Historians in this study worked concurrently on multiple studies or on a larger project for a book, and each of their searches for digital collections had the potential to provide them with useful results for several research studies.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:03:50
  3. Hangel, N.; Schmidt-Pfister, D.: Why do you publish? : on the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure (2017) 0.10 
    0.10316075 = sum of:
  0.014868473 = product of:
    0.05947389 = sum of:
      0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05947389 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4054, 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=4054)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08829227 = sum of:
    0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053199906 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
    0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03509236 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4054, 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=4054)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine researchers' motivations to publish by comparing different career stages (PhD students; temporarily employed postdocs/new professors; scholars with permanent employment) with regard to epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motives. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative analysis is mainly based on semi-structured narrative interviews with 91 researchers in the humanities, social, and natural sciences, based at six renowned (anonymous) universities in Germany, the UK, and the USA. These narratives contain answers to the direct question "why do you publish?" as well as remarks on motivations to publish in relation to other questions and themes. The interdisciplinary interpretation is based on both sociological science studies and philosophy of science in practice. Findings At each career stage, epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motivations to publish are weighed differently. Confirming earlier studies, the authors find that PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in temporary positions mainly feel pressured to publish for career-related reasons. However, across status groups, researchers also want to publish in order to support collective knowledge generation. Research limitations/implications The sample of interviewees may be biased toward those interested in reflecting on their day-to-day work. Social implications Continuous and collective reflection is imperative for preventing uncritical internalization of pragmatic reasons to publish. Creating occasions for reflection is a task not only of researchers themselves, but also of administrators, funders, and other stakeholders. Originality/value Most studies have illuminated how researchers publish while adapting to or growing into the contemporary publish-or-perish culture. This paper addresses the rarely asked question why researchers publish at all.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  4. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.10 
    0.102827996 = product of:
  0.20565599 = sum of:
    0.20565599 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.09925619 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09925619 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  5. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.10 
    0.09976995 = sum of:
  0.029136134 = product of:
    0.11654454 = sum of:
      0.11654454 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11654454 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.070633814 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = weight(_text_:n in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042559925 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02807389 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  6. Paul-Hus, A.; Desrochers, N.; Rijcke, S.de; Rushforth, A.D.: ¬The reward system of science (2017) 0.09 
    0.08829227 = product of:
  0.17658454 = sum of:
    0.17658454 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 3304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=3304,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 3304, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3304)
      0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 3304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07018472 = score(doc=3304,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3304, 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=3304)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  7. Rekabsaz, N. et al.: Toward optimized multimodal concept indexing (2016) 0.09 
    0.08829227 = product of:
  0.17658454 = sum of:
    0.17658454 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07018472 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  8. Platis, N. et al.: Visualization of uncertainty in tag clouds (2016) 0.09 
    0.08829227 = product of:
  0.17658454 = sum of:
    0.17658454 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 2755, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2755)
      0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07018472 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, 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=2755)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  9. Ford, N.: Introduction to information behaviour (2015) 0.09 
    0.08829227 = product of:
  0.17658454 = sum of:
    0.17658454 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
      0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07018472 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, 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=3341)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 16:45:48
  10. Häring, N.; Hensinger, P.: "Digitale Bildung" : Der abschüssige Weg zur Konditionierungsanstalt (2019) 0.09 
    0.08829227 = product of:
  0.17658454 = sum of:
    0.17658454 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 4999, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4999)
      0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07018472 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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
  11. Milard, B.; Tanguy, L.: Citations in scientific texts : do social relations matter? (2018) 0.09 
    0.08619051 = sum of:
  0.030903539 = product of:
    0.123614155 = sum of:
      0.123614155 = weight(_text_:authors in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.123614155 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4547, 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=4547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.055286966 = product of:
    0.11057393 = sum of:
      0.11057393 = weight(_text_:n in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11057393 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.49506366 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.
  12. Milard, B.: ¬The social circles behind scientific references : relationships between citing and cited authors in chemistry publications (2014) 0.08 
    0.080825955 = sum of:
  0.035684332 = product of:
    0.14273733 = sum of:
      0.14273733 = weight(_text_:authors in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14273733 = score(doc=1539,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04514162 = product of:
    0.09028324 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=1539,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.
  13. Arboit, A.E.; Cabrini Gracio, M.C.; Oliveira, E.F.T. de; Bufrem, L.S.: ¬The relationship between authors and main thematic categories in the field of knowledge organization : a bibliometric approach (2012) 0.07 
    0.07181624 = sum of:
  0.0398963 = product of:
    0.1595852 = sum of:
      0.1595852 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1595852 = score(doc=824,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031919945 = product of:
    0.06383989 = sum of:
      0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06383989 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is a study about the relationships between authors and the main thematic categories in the papers published in the last five International ISKO Conferences, held between 2002 and 2010. The aim is to map the domain as ISKO conferences are considered the most representative forum in the field. The published papers are considered to indicate the relationships between authors and themes. The Classification Scheme for Knowledge Organization Literature (CSKOL) was used to categorize the papers. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study can be found in the concept of domain analysis proposed by Hjørland. The analysis of the papers (n=146) led to the identification of the most productive authors, the networks representing the relationships between the authors as also the categories that constitute the primary areas of research.
  14. Kaiser, R.; Ockenfeld, M.; Skurcz, N.: Wann versteht mich mein Computer endlich? : 1. DGI-Konfernz: Semantic Web & Linked Data - Elemente zukünftiger Informationsinfrastrukturen (2011) 0.07 
    0.070633814 = product of:
  0.14126763 = sum of:
    0.14126763 = sum of:
      0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08511985 = score(doc=4392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
      0.05614778 = weight(_text_:22 in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05614778 = score(doc=4392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4392, 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=4392)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    BuB. 63(2011) H.1, S.22-23
  15. Lin, Y.-R.; Margolin, D.; Lazer, D.: Uncovering social semantics from textual traces : a theory-driven approach and evidence from public statements of U.S. Members of Congress (2016) 0.07 
    0.07037425 = sum of:
  0.025232634 = product of:
    0.100930534 = sum of:
      0.100930534 = weight(_text_:authors in 3078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100930534 = score(doc=3078,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3078, 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=3078)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04514162 = product of:
    0.09028324 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 3078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=3078,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 3078, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3078)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The increasing abundance of digital textual archives provides an opportunity for understanding human social systems. Yet the literature has not adequately considered the disparate social processes by which texts are produced. Drawing on communication theory, we identify three common processes by which documents might be detectably similar in their textual features-authors sharing subject matter, sharing goals, and sharing sources. We hypothesize that these processes produce distinct, detectable relationships between authors in different kinds of textual overlap. We develop a novel n-gram extraction technique to capture such signatures based on n-grams of different lengths. We test the hypothesis on a corpus where the author attributes are observable: the public statements of the members of the U.S. Congress. This article presents the first empirical finding that shows different social relationships are detectable through the structure of overlapping textual features. Our study has important implications for designing text modeling techniques to make sense of social phenomena from aggregate digital traces.
  16. Onodera, N.; Iwasawa, M.; Midorikawa, N.; Yoshikane, F.; Amano, K.; Ootani, Y.; Kodama, T.; Kiyama, Y.; Tsunoda, H.; Yamazaki, S.: ¬A method for eliminating articles by homonymous authors from the large number of articles retrieved by author search (2011) 0.07 
    0.06735496 = sum of:
  0.029736945 = product of:
    0.11894778 = sum of:
      0.11894778 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11894778 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03761802 = product of:
    0.07523604 = sum of:
      0.07523604 = weight(_text_:n in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07523604 = score(doc=4370,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.
  17. Koppel, M.; Schweitzer, N.: Measuring direct and indirect authorial influence in historical corpora (2014) 0.07 
    0.06634948 = sum of:
  0.023789555 = product of:
    0.09515822 = sum of:
      0.09515822 = weight(_text_:authors in 1506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09515822 = score(doc=1506,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 1506, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1506)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.042559925 = product of:
    0.08511985 = sum of:
      0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 1506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08511985 = score(doc=1506,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1506, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1506)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We show how automatically extracted citations in historical corpora can be used to measure the direct and indirect influence of authors on each other. These measures can in turn be used to determine an author's overall prominence in the corpus and to identify distinct schools of thought. We apply our methods to two major historical corpora. Using scholarly consensus as a gold standard, we demonstrate empirically the superiority of indirect influence over direct influence as a basis for various measures of authorial impact.
  18. Richert, N.: Authors in the Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet database (2011) 0.07 
    0.06634948 = sum of:
  0.023789555 = product of:
    0.09515822 = sum of:
      0.09515822 = weight(_text_:authors in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09515822 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.042559925 = product of:
    0.08511985 = sum of:
      0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08511985 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Huang, M.; Barbour, J.; Su, C.; Contractor, N.: Why do group members provide information to digital knowledge repositories? : a multilevel application of transactive memory theory (2013) 0.07 
    0.06619704 = product of:
  0.13239408 = sum of:
    0.13239408 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=666,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 666, 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=666)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The proliferation of digital knowledge repositories (DKRs) used for distributed and collocated work raises important questions about how to manage these technologies. This study investigates why individuals contribute information to DKRs by applying and extending transactive memory theory. Data from knowledge workers (N = 208) nested in work groups (J = 17) located in Europe and the United States revealed, consistent with transactive memory theory, that perceptions of experts' retrieval of information were positively related to the likelihood of information provision to DKRs. The relationship between experts' perceptions of retrieval and information provision varied from group to group, and cross-level interactions indicated that trust in how the information would be used and the interdependence of tasks within groups could explain that variation. Furthermore, information provision to DKRs was related to communication networks in ways consistent with theorizing regarding the formation of transactive memory systems. Implications for theory and practice are discussed, emphasizing the utility of multilevel approaches for conceptualizing and modeling why individuals provide information to DKRs.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:39:00
  20. Schlicht, T.: Soziale Kognition (2011) 0.07 
    0.06619704 = product of:
  0.13239408 = sum of:
    0.13239408 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 4583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=4583,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 4583, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4583)
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=4583,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4583, 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=4583)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der Mensch ist ein soziales Wesen, und im Alltag gehen wir unhinterfragt davon aus, dass andere Menschen wie wir selbst geistbegabt sind und somit Gefühle, Gedanken und Absichten haben, und wir geben diese Annahme nur in den äußersten Ausnahmefällen auf. Aber auf welche Weise gelangen wir überhaupt zu berechtigten Überzeugungen darüber, was genau andere in einer bestimmten Situation fühlen, denken oder beabsichtigen, wo uns doch ein direkter Zugang zu deren Psyche verwehrt zu sein scheint? Welche Strategie(n) verwenden wir, um Zugang zu der Psyche eines Anderen zu erhalten und welche Art(en) von Wissen sind dabei involviert? Orientieren wir uns eher an unserem eigenen Vorbild und projizieren unsere Vorstellungen in die andere Person hinein oder ähnelt unsere Fähigkeit zur sozialen Kognition eher unserem theoretischen Verständnis anderer 'Objekte'? Beruht unser Wissen über die Psyche eines Anderen auf unserem vorhergehenden Selbstverständnis oder sind intentionaler Selbst- und Frem dbezug systematisch gleichberechtigt? Diese und andere Fragen bewegen nicht nur Philosophen seit alters her, sondern gleichermaßen auch Psychologen sowie jüngst auch Neurowissenschaftler, die solchen Fähigkeiten zugrunde liegende psychologische Prozesse und neuronale Mechanismen im Gehirn untersuchen.
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.information-philosophie.de/?a=1&t=7815&n=2#.
    Source
    Information Philosophie. 2014/2 (2014), S.22-27

Authors

Languages

  • e 1036
  • d 248
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 1150
  • el 108
  • m 74
  • s 23
  • x 16
  • n 14
  • r 8
  • b 5
  • ag 1
  • i 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications