Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026025347 = product of:
  0.052050695 = sum of:
    0.052050695 = product of:
      0.10410139 = sum of:
        0.10410139 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10410139 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Object

g-index

0.025042903 = product of:
  0.050085805 = sum of:
    0.050085805 = product of:
      0.10017161 = sum of:
        0.10017161 = weight(_text_:g in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10017161 = score(doc=1508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is shown that a normalized version of the g-index is a good normalized impact and concentration measure. A proposal for such a measure by Bartolucci is improved.

Object

g-index

0.024791209 = product of:
  0.049582418 = sum of:
    0.049582418 = product of:
      0.099164836 = sum of:
        0.099164836 = weight(_text_:g in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099164836 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Object

g-index

0.021469817 = product of:
  0.042939633 = sum of:
    0.042939633 = product of:
      0.085879266 = sum of:
        0.085879266 = weight(_text_:g in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085879266 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5031335 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.

Object

g-index

0.015392908 = product of:
  0.030785816 = sum of:
    0.030785816 = product of:
      0.06157163 = sum of:
        0.06157163 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06157163 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = 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(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.012521451 = product of:
  0.025042903 = sum of:
    0.025042903 = product of:
      0.050085805 = sum of:
        0.050085805 = weight(_text_:g in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050085805 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.2934334 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

0.010624804 = product of:
  0.021249607 = sum of:
    0.021249607 = product of:
      0.042499214 = sum of:
        0.042499214 = weight(_text_:g in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042499214 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009235744 = product of:
  0.018471489 = sum of:
    0.018471489 = product of:
      0.036942977 = sum of:
        0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036942977 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.009235744 = product of:
  0.018471489 = sum of:
    0.018471489 = product of:
      0.036942977 = sum of:
        0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036942977 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22