Search (104 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.04 
    0.039721094 = product of:
  0.07944219 = sum of:
    0.07944219 = sum of:
      0.042499214 = weight(_text_:g in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042499214 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036942977 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  2. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.04 
    0.039721094 = product of:
  0.07944219 = sum of:
    0.07944219 = sum of:
      0.042499214 = weight(_text_:g in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042499214 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036942977 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:35:26
    Footnote
    Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
  3. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:19:42
  4. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  5. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.03 
    0.030051483 = product of:
  0.060102966 = sum of:
    0.060102966 = product of:
      0.12020593 = sum of:
        0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12020593 = score(doc=3418,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
    Object
    g-index
  6. Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015) 0.03 
    0.030051483 = product of:
  0.060102966 = sum of:
    0.060102966 = product of:
      0.12020593 = sum of:
        0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12020593 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Object
    g-index
  7. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.03 
    0.028332809 = product of:
  0.056665618 = sum of:
    0.056665618 = product of:
      0.113331236 = sum of:
        0.113331236 = weight(_text_:g in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113331236 = score(doc=1113,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.663964 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
    Object
    g-index
  8. Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013) 0.03 
    0.027717413 = product of:
  0.055434827 = sum of:
    0.055434827 = product of:
      0.11086965 = sum of:
        0.11086965 = weight(_text_:g in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11086965 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.6495425 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
    Object
    g-index
  9. Egghe, L.: ¬A good normalized impact and concentration measure (2014) 0.03 
    0.025042903 = product of:
  0.050085805 = sum of:
    0.050085805 = product of:
      0.10017161 = sum of:
        0.10017161 = weight(_text_:g in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10017161 = score(doc=1508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is shown that a normalized version of the g-index is a good normalized impact and concentration measure. A proposal for such a measure by Bartolucci is improved.
    Object
    g-index
  10. 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) 0.03 
    0.025042903 = product of:
  0.050085805 = sum of:
    0.050085805 = product of:
      0.10017161 = sum of:
        0.10017161 = weight(_text_:g in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10017161 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  11. Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' " (2013) 0.02 
    0.024536934 = product of:
  0.049073867 = sum of:
    0.049073867 = product of:
      0.098147735 = sum of:
        0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098147735 = score(doc=1052,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure?. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2290-2293.
    Object
    g-index
  12. Prathap, G.: Measures for impact, consistency, and the h- and g-indices (2014) 0.02 
    0.024536934 = product of:
  0.049073867 = sum of:
    0.049073867 = product of:
      0.098147735 = sum of:
        0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098147735 = score(doc=1250,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Object
    g-index
  13. Bartolucci, F.: ¬A comparison between the g-index and the h-index based on concentration (2015) 0.02 
    0.024536934 = product of:
  0.049073867 = sum of:
    0.049073867 = product of:
      0.098147735 = sum of:
        0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098147735 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.
    Object
    g-index
  14. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity (2013) 0.02 
    0.023757784 = product of:
  0.047515567 = sum of:
    0.047515567 = product of:
      0.095031135 = sum of:
        0.095031135 = weight(_text_:g in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095031135 = score(doc=957,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5567507 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions about recruitment, career advancement, rewards, and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work, we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on the following three different indexes: the h-index, the g-index, and "fractional scientific strength" (FSS), an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences during the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as the h- or g-indexes are compared with those by more accurate FSS.
    Object
    g-index
  15. Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011) 0.02 
    0.02342549 = product of:
  0.04685098 = sum of:
    0.04685098 = product of:
      0.09370196 = sum of:
        0.09370196 = weight(_text_:g in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09370196 = score(doc=1053,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It was argued recently that the g-index is a measure of a researcher's specific impact (i.e., impact per paper) as much as it is a measure of overall impact. While this is true for the productive "core" of publications, it can be argued that the g-index does not differ from the square root of the total number of citations in a bibliometrically meaningful way when the entire publication list is considered. The R-index also has a tendency to follow total impact, leaving only the A-index as a true measure of specific impact. The main difference between the g-index and the h-index is that the former penalizes consistency of impact whereas the latter rewards such consistency. It is concluded that the h-index is a better bibliometric tool than is the g-index, and that the square root of the total number of citations is a convenient measure of a researcher's overall impact.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.
    Object
    g-index
  16. Egghe, L.: Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, "what does the g-index really measure?" (2012) 0.02 
    0.021469817 = product of:
  0.042939633 = sum of:
    0.042939633 = product of:
      0.085879266 = sum of:
        0.085879266 = weight(_text_:g in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085879266 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5031335 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.
    Object
    g-index
  17. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: ¬A robust benchmark for the h- and g-indexes (2010) 0.02 
    0.021249607 = product of:
  0.042499214 = sum of:
    0.042499214 = product of:
      0.08499843 = sum of:
        0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 3470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08499843 = score(doc=3470,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 3470, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The use of Hirsch's h-index as a joint proxy of the impact and productivity of a scientist's research work continues to gain ground, accompanied by the efforts of bibliometrists to resolve some of its critical issues through the application of a number of more or less sophisticated variants. However, the literature does not reveal any appreciable attempt to overcome the objective problems of measuring h-indexes on a large scale for purposes of comparative evaluation. Scientists may succeed in calculating their own h-indexes but, being unable to compare them to those of their peers, they are unable to obtain truly useful indications of their individual research performance. This study proposes to overcome this gap, measuring the h- and Egghe's g-indexes of all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences over a 5-year window. Descriptive statistics are provided concerning all of the 165 subject fields examined, offering robust benchmarks for those who wish to compare their individual performance to those of their colleagues in the same subject field.
    Object
    g-index
  18. Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012) 0.02 
    0.021249607 = product of:
  0.042499214 = sum of:
    0.042499214 = product of:
      0.08499843 = sum of:
        0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08499843 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012) 0.02 
    0.021249607 = product of:
  0.042499214 = sum of:
    0.042499214 = product of:
      0.08499843 = sum of:
        0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08499843 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  20. Prathap, G.: Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators (2014) 0.02 
    0.021249607 = product of:
  0.042499214 = sum of:
    0.042499214 = product of:
      0.08499843 = sum of:
        0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 1178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08499843 = score(doc=1178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 1178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Languages

  • e 100
  • d 4
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 103
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications