Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015457057 = product of:
  0.030914115 = sum of:
    0.030914115 = product of:
      0.06182823 = sum of:
        0.06182823 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06182823 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.015271728 = product of:
  0.030543456 = sum of:
    0.030543456 = product of:
      0.06108691 = sum of:
        0.06108691 = weight(_text_:j in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06108691 = score(doc=81,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.013225704 = product of:
  0.026451409 = sum of:
    0.026451409 = product of:
      0.052902818 = sum of:
        0.052902818 = weight(_text_:j in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052902818 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.009274234 = product of:
  0.018548468 = sum of:
    0.018548468 = product of:
      0.037096936 = sum of:
        0.037096936 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037096936 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.009274234 = product of:
  0.018548468 = sum of:
    0.018548468 = product of:
      0.037096936 = sum of:
        0.037096936 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037096936 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22

0.0076358644 = product of:
  0.015271729 = sum of:
    0.015271729 = product of:
      0.030543458 = sum of:
        0.030543458 = weight(_text_:j in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030543458 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3336, 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=3336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).