-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.06
0.05899369 = product of:
0.11798738 = sum of:
0.11798738 = product of:
0.17698106 = sum of:
0.07991694 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07991694 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.097064115 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097064115 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.06
0.05899369 = product of:
0.11798738 = sum of:
0.11798738 = product of:
0.17698106 = sum of:
0.07991694 = weight(_text_:j in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07991694 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.097064115 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097064115 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.06
0.056927375 = product of:
0.11385475 = sum of:
0.11385475 = sum of:
0.024974043 = weight(_text_:j in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024974043 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.045984026 = weight(_text_:n in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045984026 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.042896684 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042896684 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008)
0.05
0.048878785 = product of:
0.09775757 = sum of:
0.09775757 = product of:
0.14663635 = sum of:
0.024974043 = weight(_text_:j in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024974043 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.12166231 = weight(_text_:n in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12166231 = score(doc=1722,freq=14.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.63018525 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
-
Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015)
0.05
0.047305383 = product of:
0.094610766 = sum of:
0.094610766 = product of:
0.14191614 = sum of:
0.049948085 = weight(_text_:j in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049948085 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.09196805 = weight(_text_:n in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09196805 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023)
0.04
0.04438532 = product of:
0.08877064 = sum of:
0.08877064 = product of:
0.13315596 = sum of:
0.10282342 = weight(_text_:n in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10282342 = score(doc=992,freq=10.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.53260374 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.030332536 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030332536 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 14:09:06
-
Egghe, L.: Relations between the continuous and the discrete Lotka power function (2005)
0.04
0.04331502 = product of:
0.08663004 = sum of:
0.08663004 = product of:
0.12994505 = sum of:
0.051907573 = weight(_text_:j in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051907573 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.3648396 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
0.07803748 = weight(_text_:n in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07803748 = score(doc=3464,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.
-
Egghe, L.: Empirical and combinatorial study of country occurrences in multi-authored papers (2006)
0.04
0.041218348 = product of:
0.082436696 = sum of:
0.082436696 = product of:
0.12365504 = sum of:
0.0599377 = weight(_text_:j in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0599377 = score(doc=81,freq=18.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.42128047 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.06371734 = weight(_text_:n in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06371734 = score(doc=81,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.33004245 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.
-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.04
0.04070217 = product of:
0.08140434 = sum of:
0.08140434 = product of:
0.12210651 = sum of:
0.073574446 = weight(_text_:n in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073574446 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.048532058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048532058 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30.12.2007 11:22:39
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018)
0.04
0.040516242 = product of:
0.081032485 = sum of:
0.081032485 = sum of:
0.019979235 = weight(_text_:j in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019979235 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.036787223 = weight(_text_:n in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036787223 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.024266029 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024266029 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.03
0.030526623 = product of:
0.061053246 = sum of:
0.061053246 = product of:
0.09157987 = sum of:
0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055180833 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.03639904 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03639904 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000)
0.03
0.028383229 = product of:
0.056766458 = sum of:
0.056766458 = product of:
0.08514968 = sum of:
0.029968852 = weight(_text_:j in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029968852 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055180833 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
An, J.; Kim, N.; Kan, M.-Y.; Kumar Chandrasekaran, M.; Song, M.: Exploring characteristics of highly cited authors according to citation location and content (2017)
0.03
0.028383229 = product of:
0.056766458 = sum of:
0.056766458 = product of:
0.08514968 = sum of:
0.029968852 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029968852 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055180833 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013)
0.03
0.026260465 = product of:
0.05252093 = sum of:
0.05252093 = product of:
0.078781396 = sum of:
0.04238236 = weight(_text_:j in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238236 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
0.03639904 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03639904 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific oeuvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 16:21:09
-
Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009)
0.03
0.025438856 = product of:
0.050877713 = sum of:
0.050877713 = product of:
0.076316565 = sum of:
0.045984026 = weight(_text_:n in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045984026 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
0.030332536 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030332536 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:52:50
-
Qin, J.: Semantic patterns in bibliographically coupled documents (2002)
0.02
0.02400141 = product of:
0.04800282 = sum of:
0.04800282 = product of:
0.07200423 = sum of:
0.019979235 = weight(_text_:j in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019979235 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
0.05202499 = weight(_text_:n in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05202499 = score(doc=4266,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Egghe, L.: Theory of the topical coverage of multiple databases (2013)
0.02
0.023992129 = product of:
0.047984257 = sum of:
0.047984257 = product of:
0.14395277 = sum of:
0.14395277 = weight(_text_:n in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14395277 = score(doc=526,freq=10.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.74564517 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present a model that describes which fraction of the literature on a certain topic we will find when we use n (n = 1, 2, .) databases. It is a generalization of the theory of discovering usability problems. We prove that, in all practical cases, this fraction is a concave function of n, the number of used databases, thereby explaining some graphs that exist in the literature. We also study limiting features of this fraction for n very high and we characterize the case that we find all literature on a certain topic for n high enough.
-
García, J.A.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.; Robinson-García, N.; Torres-Salinas, D.: Mapping academic institutions according to their journal publication profile : Spanish universities as a case study (2012)
0.02
0.023652691 = product of:
0.047305383 = sum of:
0.047305383 = product of:
0.07095807 = sum of:
0.024974043 = weight(_text_:j in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024974043 = score(doc=500,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
0.045984026 = weight(_text_:n in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045984026 = score(doc=500,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Ikae, C.; Savoy, J.: Gender identification on Twitter (2022)
0.02
0.023652691 = product of:
0.047305383 = sum of:
0.047305383 = product of:
0.07095807 = sum of:
0.024974043 = weight(_text_:j in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024974043 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
0.045984026 = weight(_text_:n in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045984026 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- To determine the author of a text's gender, various feature types have been suggested (e.g., function words, n-gram of letters, etc.) leading to a huge number of stylistic markers. To determine the target category, different machine learning models have been suggested (e.g., logistic regression, decision tree, k nearest-neighbors, support vector machine, naïve Bayes, neural networks, and random forest). In this study, our first objective is to know whether or not the same model always proposes the best effectiveness when considering similar corpora under the same conditions. Thus, based on 7 CLEF-PAN collections, this study analyzes the effectiveness of 10 different classifiers. Our second aim is to propose a 2-stage feature selection to reduce the feature size to a few hundred terms without any significant change in the performance level compared to approaches using all the attributes (increase of around 5% after applying the proposed feature selection). Based on our experiments, neural network or random forest tend, on average, to produce the highest effectiveness. Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that reducing the feature set size to around 300 without penalizing the effectiveness is possible. Finally, based on such reduced feature sizes, an analysis reveals some of the specific terms that clearly discriminate between the 2 genders.
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.02
0.022623576 = product of:
0.045247152 = sum of:
0.045247152 = product of:
0.06787073 = sum of:
0.024974043 = weight(_text_:j in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024974043 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.042896684 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042896684 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044775832 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
