Search (306 results, page 1 of 16)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.08 
    0.08070325 = product of:
  0.12105487 = sum of:
    0.08438047 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08438047 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
    0.0366744 = product of:
      0.0733488 = sum of:
        0.0733488 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0733488 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1579835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  2. Wersig, G.: Quantitative Methoden der Benutzerforschung (1981) 0.07 
    0.07044542 = product of:
  0.10566813 = sum of:
    0.08438047 = weight(_text_:g in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08438047 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
    0.02128766 = product of:
      0.04257532 = sum of:
        0.04257532 = weight(_text_:von in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04257532 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.35372335 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1980, Berlin, 29.9.-3.10.1980: IuD und Normung - Neue Kommunikationstechnologie - Berufspolitik - Datenbanken - Betriebsstatistik - Informetrie - Parlamentsdokumentation - Arbeitskreis Senioren - Gesprächskreise. Bearb.: M. von der Laake u. H. Strohl-Goebel
  3. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.07 
    0.0667682 = product of:
  0.1001523 = sum of:
    0.042190235 = weight(_text_:g in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042190235 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
    0.05796206 = sum of:
      0.02128766 = weight(_text_:von in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02128766 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04511456 = queryNorm
          0.17686167 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.0366744 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0366744 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1579835 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04511456 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:35:26
    Footnote
    Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
  4. Tscherteu, G.; Langreiter, C.: Explorative Netzwerkanalyse im Living Web (2009) 0.05 
    0.053889684 = product of:
  0.08083452 = sum of:
    0.05625365 = weight(_text_:g in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05625365 = score(doc=4870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
    0.024580874 = product of:
      0.049161747 = sum of:
        0.049161747 = weight(_text_:von in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049161747 = score(doc=4870,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.40844458 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Die Zahl von Netzwerkakteuren steigt ebenso beständig wie die Menge an Inhalten, die von denselbigen produziert wird. Wir stellen visuell orientierte explorative Werkzeuge vor, die bisher unsichtbare Netzwerkprozesse und Zusammenhänge aus der Vogelperspektive darstellen sollen. Anhand unseres Projekts "MemeMapper" untersuchen wir weiters, wie wir als Designer und Entwickler dazu beitragen können, dass sich Nutzer effektiver informieren und an der Produktion von Inhalten in ihrem Netzwerk beteiligen können.
  5. Ohly, H.P.: ¬Der 'Stand der Technik' : eine bibliometrische Betrachtungsweise (2000) 0.05 
    0.046963613 = product of:
  0.07044542 = sum of:
    0.05625365 = weight(_text_:g in 6644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05625365 = score(doc=6644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.331982 = fieldWeight in 6644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6644)
    0.014191773 = product of:
      0.028383546 = sum of:
        0.028383546 = weight(_text_:von in 6644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028383546 = score(doc=6644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.23581557 = fieldWeight in 6644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ein 'State-of-the-Art' stellt eine Mehrwert-Information dar, die auf qualitativen und quantitativen Destillaten von Informationen über ein bestimmtes Wissenschaftsgebiet beruht. Anhand der Erfahrungen aus der Zusammenstellung der Publikation 'Ernährung und Gesellschaft" wird aufgezeigt, welche Informationen sich aus bibliographischen Nachweissystemen ziehen lassen, wie sie zu interpretieren sind und in welchem Wechselspiel zu weiteren Wissensbeständen sie stehen
    Source
    Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel
  6. Reichmann, G.; Schlögl, C.: Möglichkeiten zur Steuerung der Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation (2021) 0.05 
    0.046963613 = product of:
  0.07044542 = sum of:
    0.05625365 = weight(_text_:g in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05625365 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.331982 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
    0.014191773 = product of:
      0.028383546 = sum of:
        0.028383546 = weight(_text_:von in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028383546 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.23581557 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ein Leistungsvergleich zwischen den (ehemaligen) Instituten für Informationswissenschaft der Universitäten Düsseldorf und Graz auf Basis der Forschungsleistung für einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren zeigt, wie sehr die Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation gesteuert werden können. Durch die Wahl "geeigneter" Indikatoren gelingt es - je nach Wunsch - entweder das eine oder das andere Institut an die erste Stelle zu bringen. Hält man sich dagegen an das wissenschaftliche Gebot der Unparteilichkeit, führt dies im hier gezeigten Anwendungsbeispiel zu gemischten Ergebnissen.
  7. Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.05 
    0.045930915 = product of:
  0.13779274 = sum of:
    0.13779274 = weight(_text_:g in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13779274 = score(doc=3313,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.81318647 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.
    Object
    g-index
  8. Schlögl, C.: Informationskompetenz am Beispiel einer szientometrischen Untersuchung zum Informationsmanagement (2000) 0.04 
    0.041093163 = product of:
  0.061639745 = sum of:
    0.049221944 = weight(_text_:g in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049221944 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
    0.012417802 = product of:
      0.024835603 = sum of:
        0.024835603 = weight(_text_:von in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024835603 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag wird eine szientometrische Studie zum Informationsmanagement vorgestellt. Unter Verwendung von Science Citation Index und Social Science Citation Index wurde die Literatur zum Informationsmanagement nach verschiedenen Kriterien (Fachgruppen, in denen publiziert wird; Herkunft der Autoren; Publikationssprachen; zeitliche Verteilung) ausgewertet. Darüber hinaus wurde eine Zitatenanalyse durchgeführt. Auf Basis einer Autoren-Kozitationsanalyse wurde schließlich die formale Wissenschaftskommunikation im Bereich des Informationsmanagements abgebildet. Neben den Ergebnissen werden aber auch die Problembereiche aufgezeigt, die mit szientometrischen Untersuchungen verbunden sind
    Source
    Informationskompetenz - Basiskompetenz in der Informationsgesellschaft: Proceedings des 7. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2000), Hrsg.: G. Knorz u. R. Kuhlen
  9. Schlögl, C.; List, R,: Vergleiche von Zitaten, Downloads und Lesehäufigkeiten : am Beispiel von zwei Volkswirtschaftslehre-Zeitschriften (2018) 0.04 
    0.04041726 = product of:
  0.06062589 = sum of:
    0.042190235 = weight(_text_:g in 4236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042190235 = score(doc=4236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4236, 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=4236)
    0.018435655 = product of:
      0.03687131 = sum of:
        0.03687131 = weight(_text_:von in 4236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687131 = score(doc=4236,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.30633342 = fieldWeight in 4236, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Im vorliegenden Beitrag untersuchen wir die Beziehung zwischen Zitaten, Downloads und sog. Lesehäufigkeiten des sozialen Literaturverwaltungssystems "Mendeley" anhand der beiden Volkswirtschaftslehre-Zeitschriften "Journal of Environ­mental Economics and Management" und "Journal of Financial Economics". Trotz Ähnlichkeiten bei den Häufig­keitsverteilungen, konnten wir großteils nur mittlere (Rang)Korrelationen zwischen den drei Zeitschriftenindikatoren berechnen. In den drei Top-10 Rankings kam es zur Überschneidung von nur drei Publikationen. Deutliche Unterschiede gibt es bei den Alters- und Nutzerstrukturen. Während der Großteil der Mendeley-Nutzer Studierende sind, ist der Anteil der Professoren relativ gering. Durch die Mendeley-Profile kann ermittelt werden, aus welchen Disziplinen die Leser einer Zeitschrift kommen. Dies lässt vor allem bei interdisziplinären Zeitschriften wie "Journal of Financial Economics" interessante Rückschlüsse zu. Ähnlich wie bei Zitaten, gibt es auch bei Downloads und Lesehäufigkeiten disziplinspezifische Unterschiede.
    Footnote
    Teil eines Themenheftes: Themenheft: Düsseldorfer und Grazer Informationswissenschaft / Gastherausgeber: Wolfgang G. Stock, Christian Schlögl.
  10. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.04 
    0.040351626 = product of:
  0.060527436 = sum of:
    0.042190235 = weight(_text_:g in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042190235 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
    0.0183372 = product of:
      0.0366744 = sum of:
        0.0366744 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0366744 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1579835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  11. Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009) 0.04 
    0.03977734 = product of:
  0.119332016 = sum of:
    0.119332016 = weight(_text_:g in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119332016 = score(doc=3125,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.
    Object
    g-index
  12. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.04 
    0.03977734 = product of:
  0.119332016 = sum of:
    0.119332016 = weight(_text_:g in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119332016 = score(doc=3418,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
    Object
    g-index
  13. Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015) 0.04 
    0.03977734 = product of:
  0.119332016 = sum of:
    0.119332016 = weight(_text_:g in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119332016 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Object
    g-index
  14. Wagner-Döbler, R.: Kognitive Mobilität und Zipfs "Principle of Least Effort" (2004) 0.04 
    0.039083984 = product of:
  0.058625974 = sum of:
    0.035158534 = weight(_text_:g in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035158534 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
    0.023467442 = product of:
      0.046934884 = sum of:
        0.046934884 = weight(_text_:von in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046934884 = score(doc=3159,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.3899434 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Unter kognitiver Mobilität verstehe ich im folgenden nicht die Mobilität von Information, sondern die Bewegung des Denkens, und zwar hier des wissenschaftlichen Denkens. Wissenschaftliches Denken vollzieht sich disziplinär sowie interdisziplinär, im informationellen Austausch von Disziplinen und Forschungsgebieten. Dieser Austausch unterliegt, wie die Wissenschaftsgeschichte lehrt, einer Entwicklungsdynamik, die als Abfolge von Wanderungen oder Übergängen zwischen Forschungsgebieten in folgendem Sinn verständen werden kann. Beschäftigt sich ein Forscher A zum Zeitpunkt t1 mit Forschungsgebiet X und zum Zeitpunkt t2 als nächstes mit Forschungsgebiet Y, so liegt ein Übergang von X nach Y vor. Gibt es für diese Art von Übergängen charakteristische Eigenschaften oder Regularitäten.> Ein wichtiges Merkmal solcher Übergänge ist der Grad der Verwandtschaft, der kognitiven Affinität zwischen Ausgangs- und Zielgebiet der Migration. Am Beispiel der rund 150.000 Migrationen zwischen den mathematischen Subdisziplinen, wie sie sich in den Zeitschriftenartikel-Nachweisen der Mathematical Reviews von 1959 bis 1975 widerspiegeln, wurde das Verhältnis von kognitiver Mobilität und Affinität empirisch systematisch untersucht. Es bestätigte sich George K. Zipfs "Principle of Least Effort". Zählreiche Mechanismen und Faustregeln der Wissensorganisation dürften der Wirksamkeit dieses Prinzips zugrundeliegen.
    Source
    Wissensorganisation in kooperativen Lern- und Arbeitsumgebungen: Proceedings der 8. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Regensburg, 9.-11. Oktober 2002. Hrsg.: G. Budin u. H.P. Ohly
  15. Folly, G.; Hajtman, B.; Nagy, J.I.; Ruff, I.: Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis (1981) 0.04 
    0.037502434 = product of:
  0.1125073 = sum of:
    0.1125073 = weight(_text_:g in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1125073 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.663964 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  16. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.04 
    0.037502434 = product of:
  0.1125073 = sum of:
    0.1125073 = weight(_text_:g in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1125073 = score(doc=1113,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.663964 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
    Object
    g-index
  17. Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013) 0.04 
    0.036687873 = product of:
  0.11006361 = sum of:
    0.11006361 = weight(_text_:g in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11006361 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.6495425 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
    Object
    g-index
  18. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008) 0.03 
    0.034448188 = product of:
  0.10334456 = sum of:
    0.10334456 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10334456 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  19. Informations- und Wissensverarbeitung in den Sozialwissenschaften : Beiträge zur Umsetzung neuer Informationstechnologien (1994) 0.03 
    0.033681057 = product of:
  0.050521582 = sum of:
    0.035158534 = weight(_text_:g in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035158534 = score(doc=5067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
    0.015363047 = product of:
      0.030726094 = sum of:
        0.030726094 = weight(_text_:von in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030726094 = score(doc=5067,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.120363325 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.25527787 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Die Beiträge behandeln aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln einen durch die Begriffe Sozialwissenschaft-Informatik-Information abgegrenzten, interdisziplinären Themenkomplex. Gerade in den Sozialwissenschaften haben die qualitative Textinterpretation und die Suche nach typischen, einzelnen Fällen ihren festen Stellenwert, und automatische Informationssuche und Informationsaufbereitung sind zu unverzichtbaren Forschungsinstrumenten geworden. Dieser Band enthält eine Vielzahl von Fachbeiträgen, die im Rahmen entsprechender Spezialveranstaltungen entstanden sind oder eigens für diesen Band geschrieben wurden. Sowohl als Einführungen wie auch im Rahmen spezieller Fragestellungen werden Ansätze aus den Gebieten Künstliche Intelligenz, Bilderkennung, Kommunikationsnetze, Hypertext, Szientometrie, Bibliometrie u.a., jeweils mit Bezug auf sozialwissenschaftliche Anwendung, vorgestellt
    Content
    Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: INGWERSEN, P.: Information science as a cognitive science; MEDER, N.: Objekt-orientierte Wissensdarstellung und -navigation; SPIESS, M.: Repräsentation unsicheren Wissens; HENRICHS, N.: Begriffswandel in Datenbanken: kontextuelle Inhaltsanalyse für Disambiguierung und ideengeschichtliche Analyse; VOGT, C. u. R. WILLE: Formale Begriffsanalyse: Darstellung und Analyse von bibliographischen Daten; RITTBERGER, M.: Online-Retrieval und Hypertext: auf dem Weg zu verknüpften Datenbanken und offenen Hypertextsystemen; SCHOPEN, M.: GRIPS-Menu: Unterstützung von Endnutzerrecherchen in Literaturdatenbanken des DIMDI; KLOSE, G. u. T. PIRLEIN: Wissensmodellierung in LILOG; DANIEL, H.-D.: Peer-review als Qualitätsfilter im wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesen
  20. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011) 0.03 
    0.033626355 = product of:
  0.050439533 = sum of:
    0.035158534 = weight(_text_:g in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035158534 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1694479 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04511456 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.015281 = product of:
      0.030562 = sum of:
        0.030562 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030562 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1579835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04511456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:19:42

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 205
  • d 98
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 289
  • el 11
  • m 7
  • s 4
  • r 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications