Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038042746 = product of:
  0.07608549 = sum of:
    0.07608549 = sum of:
      0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03249465 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.04359084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04359084 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, 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=2591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
18. 9.2018 18:22:56

0.031659015 = product of:
  0.06331803 = sum of:
    0.06331803 = sum of:
      0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03249465 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
      0.03082338 = weight(_text_:22 in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082338 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 241, 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=241)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 6.2012 14:22:34

0.023878593 = product of:
  0.047757186 = sum of:
    0.047757186 = product of:
      0.09551437 = sum of:
        0.09551437 = weight(_text_:p in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09551437 = score(doc=4349,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.58383846 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.

Object

P-Rank

0.017194552 = product of:
  0.034389105 = sum of:
    0.034389105 = product of:
      0.06877821 = sum of:
        0.06877821 = weight(_text_:p in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06877821 = score(doc=393,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.42041177 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study employed benchmarking and intellectual relevance judgment in evaluating Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and Ask Kids on 30 queries that children formulated to find information for specific tasks. Retrieved hits on given queries were benchmarked to Google's and Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits retrieved. Relevancy of hits was judged on a graded scale; precision was calculated using the precision-at-ten metric (P@10). Yahoo! and Bing produced a similar percentage in hit overlap with Google (nearly 30%), but differed in the ranking of hits. Ask Kids retrieved 11% in hit overlap with Google versus 3% by Yahoo! Kids. The engines retrieved 26 hits across query clusters that overlapped with Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits. Precision (P) that the engines produced across the queries was P = 0.48 for relevant hits, and P = 0.28 for partially relevant hits. Precision by Ask Kids was P = 0.44 for relevant hits versus P = 0.21 by Yahoo! Kids. Bing produced the highest total precision (TP) of relevant hits (TP = 0.86) across the queries, and Yahoo! Kids yielded the lowest (TP = 0.47). Average precision (AP) of relevant hits was AP = 0.56 by leading engines versus AP = 0.29 by small engines. In contrast, average precision of partially relevant hits was AP = 0.83 by small engines versus AP = 0.33 by leading engines. Average precision of relevant hits across the engines was highest on two-word queries and lowest on one-word queries. Google performed best on natural language queries; Bing did the same (P = 0.69) on two-word queries. The findings have implications for search engine ranking algorithms, relevance theory, search engine design, research design, and information literacy.

0.012329352 = product of:
  0.024658704 = sum of:
    0.024658704 = product of:
      0.04931741 = sum of:
        0.04931741 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04931741 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.012329352 = product of:
  0.024658704 = sum of:
    0.024658704 = product of:
      0.04931741 = sum of:
        0.04931741 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04931741 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 9.2014 14:45:22

0.011488594 = product of:
  0.022977188 = sum of:
    0.022977188 = product of:
      0.045954376 = sum of:
        0.045954376 = weight(_text_:p in 5356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045954376 = score(doc=5356,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 5356, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009748395 = product of:
  0.01949679 = sum of:
    0.01949679 = product of:
      0.03899358 = sum of:
        0.03899358 = weight(_text_:p in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03899358 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In response to Hjørland's recent call for a reconceptualization of the foundations of relevance, we suggest that the sociocognitive aspects of intermediation by information agencies, such as archives and libraries, are a necessary and unexplored part of the infrastructure of the subject knowledge domains central to his recommended "view of relevance informed by a social paradigm" (2010, p. 217). From a comparative analysis of documents from 39 graduate-level introductory courses in archives, reference, and strategic/competitive intelligence taught in 13 American Library Association-accredited library and information science (LIS) programs, we identify four defining sociocognitive dimensions of "relevance work" in information agencies within Hjørland's proposed framework for relevance: tasks, time, systems, and assessors. This study is intended to supply sociocognitive content from within the relevance work domain to support further domain analytic research, and to emphasize the importance of intermediary relevance work for all subject knowledge domains.

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 2970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=2970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is important to help researchers find valuable papers from a large literature collection. To this end, many graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed. However, most of these algorithms suffer from the problem of ranking bias. Ranking bias hurts the usefulness of a ranking algorithm because it returns a ranking list with an undesirable time distribution. This paper is a focused study on how to alleviate ranking bias by leveraging the heterogeneous network structure of the literature collection. We propose a new graph-based ranking algorithm, MutualRank, that integrates mutual reinforcement relationships among networks of papers, researchers, and venues to achieve a more synthetic, accurate, and less-biased ranking than previous methods. MutualRank provides a unified model that involves both intra- and inter-network information for ranking papers, researchers, and venues simultaneously. We use the ACL Anthology Network as the benchmark data set and construct the gold standard from computer linguistics course websites of well-known universities and two well-known textbooks. The experimental results show that MutualRank greatly outperforms the state-of-the-art competitors, including PageRank, HITS, CoRank, Future Rank, and P-Rank, in ranking papers in both improving ranking effectiveness and alleviating ranking bias. Rankings of researchers and venues by MutualRank are also quite reasonable.

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 5247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=5247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007705845 = product of:
  0.01541169 = sum of:
    0.01541169 = product of:
      0.03082338 = sum of:
        0.03082338 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03082338 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:34:49