Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06811697 = product of:
  0.13623394 = sum of:
    0.07120069 = weight(_text_:o in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07120069 = score(doc=2694,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1816457 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.39197564 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
    0.044029936 = weight(_text_:et in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044029936 = score(doc=2694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16986917 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
    0.021003311 = product of:
      0.042006623 = sum of:
        0.042006623 = weight(_text_:al in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042006623 = score(doc=2694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16592026 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03620396 = queryNorm
            0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Research evaluation is increasingly popular and important among research funding bodies and science policy makers. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate the standing of individual scientists, institutions, journals, or countries. A simple and popular one among the indicators is the h-index, the Hirsch index (Hirsch 2005), which is an indicator for lifetime achievement of a scholar. Several other indicators have been proposed to complement or balance the h-index. However, these indicators have no conception of aging. The AR-index (Jin et al. 2007) incorporates aging but divides the received citation counts by the raw age of the publication. Consequently, the decay of a publication is very steep and insensitive to disciplinary differences. In addition, we believe that a publication becomes outdated only when it is no longer cited, not because of its age. Finally, all indicators treat citations as equally material when one might reasonably think that a citation from a heavily cited publication should weigh more than a citation froma non-cited or little-cited publication.We propose a new indicator, the Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index, which devalues old citations in a smooth way. It rewards an author for receiving new citations even if the publication is old. Further, it allows weighting of the citations by the citation weight of the citing publication. DCI can be used to calculate research performance on the basis of the h-core of a scholar or any other publication data.

Content

Erratum in: Järvelin, K., O. Persson: The DCI-index: discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Erratum re. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352.

0.048733257 = product of:
  0.14619976 = sum of:
    0.062267736 = weight(_text_:et in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062267736 = score(doc=998,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16986917 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.3665629 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.08393202 = sum of:
      0.059406336 = weight(_text_:al in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059406336 = score(doc=998,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16592026 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03620396 = queryNorm
          0.3580415 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.024525685 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024525685 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12678011 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03620396 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.0442249 = product of:
  0.1326747 = sum of:
    0.052835923 = weight(_text_:et in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052835923 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16986917 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 2230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2230)
    0.07983877 = sum of:
      0.050407946 = weight(_text_:al in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050407946 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16592026 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03620396 = queryNorm
          0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 2230, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2230)
      0.029430822 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029430822 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12678011 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03620396 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.021677751 = product of:
  0.06503325 = sum of:
    0.044029936 = weight(_text_:et in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044029936 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16986917 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.021003311 = product of:
      0.042006623 = sum of:
        0.042006623 = weight(_text_:al in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042006623 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16592026 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03620396 = queryNorm
            0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.018986851 = product of:
  0.113921106 = sum of:
    0.113921106 = weight(_text_:o in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113921106 = score(doc=2332,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1816457 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.627161 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article by K. Järvelin & O. Persson published in JASIST 59(9), The DCI-Index: Discounted Cumulated Impact-Based Research Evaluation, (pp. 1433-1440) contains an unfortunate error in one of its formulas, Equation 3. The present paper gives the correction and an example of impact analysis based on the corrected formula.

0.008391082 = product of:
  0.05034649 = sum of:
    0.05034649 = weight(_text_:o in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05034649 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1816457 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.004195541 = product of:
  0.025173245 = sum of:
    0.025173245 = weight(_text_:o in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025173245 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1816457 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03620396 = queryNorm
        0.13858432 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.2, S.81-83 (O. Oberhauser): "Mit diesem Band haben zwei herausragende Vertreter der europäischen Informationswissenschaft, die Professoren Peter Ingwersen (Kopenhagen) und Kalervo Järvelin (Tampere) ein Werk vorgelegt, das man vielleicht dereinst als ihr opus magnum bezeichnen wird. Mich würde dies nicht überraschen, denn die Autoren unternehmen hier den ambitionierten Versuch, zwei informations wissenschaftliche Forschungstraditionen, die einander bisher in eher geringem Ausmass begegneten, unter einem gesamtheitlichen kognitiven Ansatz zu vereinen - das primär im sozialwissenschaftlichen Bereich verankerte Forschungsgebiet "Information Seeking and Retrieval" (IS&R) und das vorwiegend im Informatikbereich angesiedelte "Information Retrieval" (IR). Dabei geht es ihnen auch darum, den seit etlichen Jahren zwar dominierenden, aber auch als zu individualistisch kritisierten kognitiven Ansatz so zu erweitern, dass technologische, verhaltensbezogene und kooperative Aspekte in kohärenter Weise berücksichtigt werden. Dies geschieht auf folgende Weise in neun Kapiteln: - Zunächst werden die beiden "Lager" - die an Systemen und Laborexperimenten orientierte IR-Tradition und die an Benutzerfragen orientierte IS&R-Fraktion - einander gegenübergestellt und einige zentrale Begriffe geklärt. - Im zweiten Kapitel erfolgt eine ausführliche Darstellung der kognitiven Richtung der Informationswissenschaft, insbesondere hinsichtlich des Informationsbegriffes. - Daran schliesst sich ein Überblick über die bisherige Forschung zu "Information Seeking" (IS) - eine äusserst brauchbare Einführung in die Forschungsfragen und Modelle, die Forschungsmethodik sowie die in diesem Bereich offenen Fragen, z.B. die aufgrund der einseitigen Ausrichtung des Blickwinkels auf den Benutzer mangelnde Betrachtung der Benutzer-System-Interaktion. - In analoger Weise wird im vierten Kapitel die systemorientierte IRForschung in einem konzentrierten Überblick vorgestellt, in dem es sowohl um das "Labormodell" als auch Ansätze wie die Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache und Expertensysteme geht. Aspekte wie Relevanz, Anfragemodifikation und Performanzmessung werden ebenso angesprochen wie die Methodik - von den ersten Laborexperimenten bis zu TREC und darüber hinaus.

0.0024525686 = product of:
  0.014715411 = sum of:
    0.014715411 = product of:
      0.029430822 = sum of:
        0.029430822 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029430822 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12678011 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03620396 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0020438072 = product of:
  0.012262843 = sum of:
    0.012262843 = product of:
      0.024525685 = sum of:
        0.024525685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024525685 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12678011 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03620396 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42