Search (885 results, page 1 of 45)

0.1520583 = product of:
  0.6082332 = sum of:
    0.6082332 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.6082332 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)

Content

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

0.12968874 = product of:
  0.25937748 = sum of:
    0.1729024 = weight(_text_:fields in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1729024 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.54708534 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Footnote

This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.

0.12671526 = product of:
  0.50686103 = sum of:
    0.50686103 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.50686103 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)

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

0.11827415 = product of:
  0.2365483 = sum of:
    0.19331077 = weight(_text_:fields in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19331077 = score(doc=4186,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.61166 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.10806997 = product of:
  0.21613994 = sum of:
    0.1729024 = weight(_text_:fields in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1729024 = score(doc=5077,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.54708534 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, 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=5077)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

How does information lead to changes in human behavior? Why have current information theories been inadequate to shed light on this and related questions? Library and Information Science (LIS) has arrived at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief theoretical history. In addition to the cognitive and physical perspectives in our study of information, a new paradigm has been suggested; the affective paradigm. This new perspective offers keys to unlocking questions about the nature of the interaction of human and information. In recent years we have developed deeper knowledge and deeper specializations, drawing together and combining knowledge from multiple fields in order to advance our own knowledge. The relationship between information needs and information seeking has been well studied. The ways in which people use information is not as well understood because of the complex nature of human behavior. Drawing from other fields that study human behavior, however, muddies the traditional boundaries of LIS, creating some possible discomfort as we trespass into lesser known intellectual territory. Pushing our boundaries also forces questions of our self-identity as a discipline. What constitutes Library and Information Science, either in whole or in part, becomes more difficult to define and can lead to greater fragmentation. Alternatively, the incorporation of multiple perspectives may be the defining core of what constitutes LIS. The focus of this talk is to look at LIS from the outside in, from a multidisciplinary perspective, in order to shed light on questions of how information can lead to changes in human behavior. Drawing from other fields of study, the impact of information on human behavior will be explored in light of what other fields may have to offer.

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=4185,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.

0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) uses six university performance indicators, including "Alumni" and "Awards"-the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. These two indicators raised doubts about the reliability of this ranking method because they are difficult to cope with. Recently, a newsletter was published featuring a reduced ARWU ranking list, leaving out Nobel Prize and Fields Medal indicators: the Alternative Ranking (Excluding Award Factor). We used uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to examine and compare the stability and confidence of the official ARWU ranking and the Alternative Ranking. The results indicate that if the ARWU ranking is reduced to the 4-indicator Alternative Ranking, it shows greater certainty and stability in ranking universities.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:40:53

0.09170379 = product of:
  0.18340757 = sum of:
    0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12226046 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.061147112 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061147112 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=1466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 1466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1466)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=1466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1466, 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=1466)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses the issue of increasing users' access to library records by their publication in Google. Data from the records, converted into html format, have been indexed by Google. The process covered basic formal description fields of the records, description of the content, supported with a thesaurus, as well as an abstract, if present in the record. In addition to monitoring the end users' statistics, the pilot testing covered visibility of library records in Google search results.

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

0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 1474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=1474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 1474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1474)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=1474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1474, 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=1474)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In time of the modern e-science structures development, the idea of an engine search tool that could embrace classification functions of scientific disciplines with modern trends of interdisciplinarity and specialization convergence within science, has been evaluated. This e-browser aims, not only to cover research fields embodied within existing classification schemes, but also on implementing tendencies alive in on-going modern research.

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

0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.

Date

19. 3.2019 12:17:22

0.08870068 = product of:
  0.35480273 = sum of:
    0.35480273 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35480273 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5411154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

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

0.08645598 = product of:
  0.17291196 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=4051,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.034590032 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034590032 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.082749 = product of:
  0.165498 = sum of:
    0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12226046 = score(doc=4130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4130, 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=4130)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The mapping of scientific fields, based on principles established in the seventies, has recently shown a remarkable development and applications are now booming with progress in computing efficiency. We examine here the convergence of two thematic mapping approaches, citation-based and word-based, which rely on quite different sociological backgrounds. A corpus in the nanoscience field was broken down into research themes, using the same clustering technique on the 2 networks separately. The tool for comparison is the table of intersections of the M clusters (here M=50) built on either side. A classical visual exploitation of such contingency tables is based on correspondence analysis. We investigate a rearrangement of the intersection table (block modeling), resulting in pseudo-map. The interest of this representation for confronting the two breakdowns is discussed. The amount of convergence found is, in our view, a strong argument in favor of the reliability of bibliometric mapping. However, the outcomes are not convergent at the degree where they can be substituted for each other. Differences highlight the complementarity between approaches based on different networks. In contrast with the strong informetric posture found in recent literature, where lexical and citation markers are considered as miscible tokens, the framework proposed here does not mix the two elements at an early stage, in compliance with their contrasted logic.

Date

8. 1.2011 18:22:50

0.082749 = product of:
  0.165498 = sum of:
    0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12226046 = score(doc=248,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice.

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.082749 = product of:
  0.165498 = sum of:
    0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12226046 = score(doc=660,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=1341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=1341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1341, 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=1341)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes the range and variation in access and use control policies and tools used by 24 web-based data repositories across a variety of fields. It also describes the rationale provided by repositories for their decisions to control data or provide means for depositors to do so. Using a purposive exploratory sample, we employed content analysis of repository website documentation, a web survey of repository managers, and selected follow-up interviews to generate data. Our results describe the range and variation in access and use control policies and tools employed, identifying both commonalities and distinctions across repositories. Using concepts from commons theory as a guiding theoretical framework, our analysis describes the following five dimensions of repository rules, or data commons boundaries: locus of decision making (depositor vs. repository), degree of variation in terms of use within the repository, the mission of the repository in relation to its scholarly field, what use means in relation to specific sorts of data, and types of exclusion.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:56:41

0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 1470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=1470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 1470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1470)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 1470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=1470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1470, 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=1470)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Characteristics of terms used in library science literature, extracted from two journals in the field in English and two in Spanish, were studied and analyzed. The particular area chosen was thematic indexing. Each term was placed in its respective knowledge field according to specialized dictionaries and thesauri, as well as experts consulted. Results produced from the research include: terms that differ from the entry in library science dictionaries but whose meaning in that source coincides with dictionaries from other specialties consulted; terms that are represented but don't have the meaning from the other knowledge fields where they emerged; terms without the corresponding definition but that refer to an equivalent entry; terms that are not included, and legally protected terms.

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

0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 3072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=3072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 3072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3072)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=3072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3072, 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=3072)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - In recent years, a large number of data repositories have been built and used. However, the extent to which scientific data are re-used in academic publications is still unknown. The purpose of this paper is to explore the functions of re-used scientific data in scholarly publication in different fields. Design/methodology/approach - To address these questions, the authors identified 827 publications citing resources in the Dryad Digital Repository indexed by Scopus from 2010 to 2015. Findings - The results show that: the number of citations to scientific data increases sharply over the years, but mainly from data-intensive disciplines, such as agricultural, biology science, environment science and medicine; the majority of citations are from the originating articles; and researchers tend to reuse data produced by their own research groups. Research limitations/implications - Dryad data may be re-used without being formally cited. Originality/value - The conservatism in data sharing suggests that more should be done to encourage researchers to re-use other's data.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22