-
Wu, Q.: ¬The w-index : a measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers (2010)
0.05
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = product of:
0.20924342 = sum of:
0.20924342 = weight(_text_:q in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20924342 = score(doc=3428,freq=8.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on.
-
Wu, Q.; Lee, C.S.; Goh, D.H.-L.: Understanding user-generated questions in social Q&A : a goal-framing approach (2023)
0.05
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = product of:
0.20924342 = sum of:
0.20924342 = weight(_text_:q in 1021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20924342 = score(doc=1021,freq=8.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 1021, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In social Q&A, user-generated questions can be viewed as goal expressions shaping the responses. Several studies have identified askers' goals from questions. However, it remains unclear how questions set goals for responders. To fill this gap, this research applies goal-framing theory. Goal-frames influence responses by attracting responders' attention to different goals. Eight question cues are used to identify gain, hedonic and normative goal-frames. A total of 14,599 posts are collected. To investigate the influence of goal-frames, response networks are constructed. Results reveal that gain goal-frames attract interactions with questions, while hedonic, and normative goal-frames promote interactions among responses. Further, topic types influence the effects of goal-frames. Gain goal-frames increase interactions with questions in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) topics while hedonic and normative goal-frames attract interactions in non-STEM topics. This research leverages responders' perspectives to explain responses to questions, which are influenced by the goals set up by question cues. Beyond that, our findings enrich the empirical knowledge of social Q&A topics, revealing that the influence of questions varies across STEM and non-STEM topics because the question cues for specifying goals are different in the two topics. Our research opens new directions to investigate questions from responders' perspectives.
-
Wu, Q.; Iyengar, S.S.; Zhu, M.: Web based image retrieval using self-organizing feature map (2001)
0.03
0.026155427 = product of:
0.052310854 = sum of:
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 6930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10462171 = score(doc=6930,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 6930, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6930)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Naidoo, J.; Huber, J.T.; Cupp, P.; Wu, Q.: Modeling the relationship between an emerging infectious disease epidemic and the body of scientific literature associated with it : the case of HIV/AIDS in the United States (2013)
0.03
0.026155427 = product of:
0.052310854 = sum of:
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10462171 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Zhang, P.; Wang, OP.; Wu, Q.: How are the best JASIST papers cited? (2018)
0.03
0.026155427 = product of:
0.052310854 = sum of:
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10462171 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
