Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1284,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=4539,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4539, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search engines index only a proportion of the web and this proportion is not determined randomly but by following algorithms that take into account the properties that impact factors measure. A survey was conducted in order to test the coverage of search engines and to decide thether their partial coverage is indeed an obstacle to using them to calculate web impact factors. The results indicate that search engine coverage, even of large national domains is extremely uneven and would be likely to lead to misleading calculations

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=3458,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Continued development of the Internet requires the development of efficient, easy-to-use search engines. Ideally, such development should call upon knowledge and skills from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, information science, psychology, and ergonomics. The current study is intended to determine whether search engines shows a pattern of interdisciplinarity. 2 disciplines were selected as the focus for the study: computer science, and library/information science. A citation analysis was conducted to measure levels of interdisciplinary research and publishing in Internet search engine design and development. The results show a higher level of interdisciplinarity among library and information scientists than among computer scientists or among any of those categorized as 'other'. This is reflected both in the types of journals in which the authors publish, and in the references they cite to support their work. However, almost no authors published articles or cited references in fields such as cognitive science, ergonomics, or psychology. The results of this study are analyzed in terms of the writings of Patrick Wilson, Bruno Latour, Pierre Bordieu, Fritz Ringer, and Thomas Pinelli, focusing on cognitive authority within a profession, interaction between disciplines, and information-gathering habits of professionals. Suggestions for further research are given

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2513,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Journal citation measures are one of the most widely used bibliometric tools. The most well-known measure is the ISI Impact Factor, under the standard definition, the impact factor of journal j in a given year is the average number of citations received by papers published in the previous two years of journal j. However, the impact factor has its "intrinsic" limitations, it is a ranking measure based fundamentally on a pure counting of the in-degrees of nodes in the network, and its calculation does not take into account the "impact" or "prestige" of the journals in which the citations appear. Google's PageRank algorithm and Kleinberg's HITS method are webpage ranking algorithm, they compute the scores of webpages based on a combination of the number of hyperlinks that point to the page and the status of pages that the hyperlinks originate from, a page is important if it is pointed to by other important pages. We demonstrate how popular webpage algorithm PageRank and HITS can be used ranking journal, and we compared ISI impact factor, PageRank and HITS for journal ranking, and with PageRank and HITS compute respectively including self-citation and non self-citation, and discussed the merit and shortcomings and the scope of application that the various algorithms are used to rank journal.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3753,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Investigates the retrieval capabilities of 6 Internet search engines on a simple query. Existing work on search engine evaluation considers only the first 10 or 20 results returned by the search engine. In this work, all documents that the search engine pointed at were retrieved and thoroughly examined. Thus the precision of the whole retrieval process could be calculated, the overlap between the results of the engines studied, and an estimate on the recall of the searches given. The precision of the engines is high, recall is very low and the overlap is minimal

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3091,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search engines are normally used to find information or Web sites, but Webometric investigations use them for quantitative data such as the number of pages matching a query and the international spread of those pages. For this type of application, the accuracy of the hit count estimates and range of URLs in the full results are important. Here, we compare the applications programming interfaces of Google, Yahoo!, and Live Search for 1,587 single word searches. The hit count estimates were broadly consistent but with Yahoo! and Google, reporting 5-6 times more hits than Live Search. Yahoo! tended to return slightly more matching URLs than Google, with Live Search returning significantly fewer. Yahoo!'s result URLs included a significantly wider range of domains and sites than the other two, and there was little consistency between the three engines in the number of different domains. In contrast, the three engines were reasonably consistent in the number of different top-level domains represented in the result URLs, although Yahoo! tended to return the most. In conclusion, quantitative results from the three search engines are mostly consistent but with unexpected types of inconsistency that users should be aware of. Google is recommended for hit count estimates but Yahoo! is recommended for all other Webometric purposes.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a