Search (166 results, page 1 of 9)

0.07046181 = product of:
  0.21138543 = sum of:
    0.21138543 = sum of:
      0.13443834 = weight(_text_:group in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13443834 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.6136867 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0769471 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.056945622 = product of:
  0.17083687 = sum of:
    0.17083687 = sum of:
      0.116427034 = weight(_text_:group in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.116427034 = score(doc=5275,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.53146833 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
      0.054409824 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054409824 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article we present an empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply available aggregation level: the research group. We focus on the distribution functions of a coherent set of indicators that are used frequently in the analysis of research performance. In this sense, the coherent set of indicators acts as a measuring instrument. Better insight into the statistical properties of a measuring instrument is necessary to enable assessment of the instrument itself. The most basic distribution in bibliometric analysis is the distribution of citations over publications, and this distribution is very skewed. Nevertheless, we clearly observe the working of the central limit theorem and find that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators, approach normal distributions. The results of our study underline the importance of the idea of group oeuvre, that is, the role of sets of related publications as a unit of analysis.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:20:22

0.046974547 = product of:
  0.14092363 = sum of:
    0.14092363 = sum of:
      0.08962556 = weight(_text_:group in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08962556 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.40912446 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
      0.05129807 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05129807 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94

0.04451194 = product of:
  0.13353582 = sum of:
    0.13353582 = sum of:
      0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09506226 = score(doc=5270,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.035230905 = product of:
  0.105692714 = sum of:
    0.105692714 = sum of:
      0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06721917 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.029359091 = product of:
  0.08807727 = sum of:
    0.08807727 = sum of:
      0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056015976 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032061294 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.029359091 = product of:
  0.08807727 = sum of:
    0.08807727 = sum of:
      0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056015976 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032061294 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028007988 = product of:
  0.08402396 = sum of:
    0.08402396 = product of:
      0.16804792 = sum of:
        0.16804792 = weight(_text_:group in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16804792 = score(doc=2847,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.7671083 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite-group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) were conducted as follow-up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite-group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite-group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.

0.025872674 = product of:
  0.07761802 = sum of:
    0.07761802 = product of:
      0.15523604 = sum of:
        0.15523604 = weight(_text_:group in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15523604 = score(doc=3538,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.7086244 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I employed bibliometric and historical methods to study the domain of the Scientific Computing group at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for an extended period of fifty years, from 1958 to 2007. I noted and confirmed the growing emergence of interdisciplinarity within the group. I also identified a strong, consistent mathematics and physics orientation within it.

0.018671993 = product of:
  0.056015976 = sum of:
    0.056015976 = product of:
      0.11203195 = sum of:
        0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11203195 = score(doc=3124,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Automated methods for the analysis, modeling, and visualization of large-scale scientometric data provide measures that enable the depiction of the state of world scientific development. We aimed to integrate minimum span clustering (MSC) and minimum spanning tree methods to cluster and visualize the global pattern of scientific publications (PSP) by analyzing aggregated Science Citation Index (SCI) data from 1994 to 2011. We hypothesized that PSP clustering is mainly affected by countries' geographic location, ethnicity, and level of economic development, as indicated in previous studies. Our results showed that the 100 countries with the highest rates of publications were decomposed into 12 PSP groups and that countries within a group tended to be geographically proximal, ethnically similar, or comparable in terms of economic status. Hubs and bridging nodes in each knowledge production group were identified. The performance of each group was evaluated across 16 knowledge domains based on their specialization, volume of publications, and relative impact. Awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of each group in various knowledge domains may have useful applications for examining scientific policies, adjusting the allocation of resources, and promoting international collaboration for future developments.

0.018671993 = product of:
  0.056015976 = sum of:
    0.056015976 = product of:
      0.11203195 = sum of:
        0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11203195 = score(doc=3522,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.

0.01848433 = product of:
  0.055452988 = sum of:
    0.055452988 = product of:
      0.110905975 = sum of:
        0.110905975 = weight(_text_:group in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110905975 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5062657 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation is a worldwide phenomenon. It needs to be considered in the international context. This study examines 4 common modalities (physical accessibility, cognitive accessibility, perceived quality, and perceived importance) underlying the complex citation practice by translation analysis. In an analysis of the Chinese literature in library and information science, it was found that there is a very strong correlation between languages cited and languages translated (r=0.978). The overall national citation pattern of foreign publications is highly correlated with its translation pattern (r=0.897). There is approximately 57% overlap between the group of the 60 most heavily cited authors and the group of the 60 most frequently translated authors. Highly cited publications are more likely to be translated (54.5 vs. 13.8%)

0.018294744 = product of:
  0.05488423 = sum of:
    0.05488423 = product of:
      0.10976846 = sum of:
        0.10976846 = weight(_text_:group in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10976846 = score(doc=4266,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5010731 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.

0.017099358 = product of:
  0.05129807 = sum of:
    0.05129807 = product of:
      0.10259614 = sum of:
        0.10259614 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10259614 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.017099358 = product of:
  0.05129807 = sum of:
    0.05129807 = product of:
      0.10259614 = sum of:
        0.10259614 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10259614 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.017099358 = product of:
  0.05129807 = sum of:
    0.05129807 = product of:
      0.10259614 = sum of:
        0.10259614 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10259614 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.015843712 = product of:
  0.04753113 = sum of:
    0.04753113 = product of:
      0.09506226 = sum of:
        0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09506226 = score(doc=1878,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

0.015843712 = product of:
  0.04753113 = sum of:
    0.04753113 = product of:
      0.09506226 = sum of:
        0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09506226 = score(doc=153,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information grounds emerge as people share information with others in a common place. Many studies have investigated the emergence of information grounds in public places. This study pays attention to the emergence, peak, and abeyance of an online information ground. It investigates a Facebook group used by youth for sharing information when misinformation spread wildly during the 2011 violence in Ambon, Indonesia. The findings demonstrate change and continuity in an online information ground; it became an information hub when reaching a peak cycle, and an information repository when entering into abeyance. Despite this period of nonactivity, the friendships and collective memories resulting from information ground interactions last over time and can be used for reactivating the online information ground when new needs emerge. Illuminating the lifecycles of an online information ground, the findings have potential to explain the dynamic of users' interactions with others and with information in quotidian spaces.

0.01511384 = product of:
  0.045341518 = sum of:
    0.045341518 = product of:
      0.090683036 = sum of:
        0.090683036 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090683036 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.01511384 = product of:
  0.045341518 = sum of:
    0.045341518 = product of:
      0.090683036 = sum of:
        0.090683036 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090683036 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28