Search (712 results, page 2 of 36)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Savolainen, R.: ¬The structure of argument patterns on a social Q&A site (2012) 0.04 
    0.044387236 = product of:
  0.08877447 = sum of:
    0.08877447 = product of:
      0.17754894 = sum of:
        0.17754894 = weight(_text_:q in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17754894 = score(doc=517,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates the argument patterns in Yahoo! Answers, a major question and answer (Q&A) site. Mainly drawing on the ideas of Toulmin (), argument pattern is conceptualized as a set of 5 major elements: claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, support, and grounds. The combinations of these elements result in diverse argument patterns. Failed opening consists of an initial claim only, whereas nonoppositional argument pattern also includes indications of support. Oppositional argument pattern contains the elements of counterclaim and rebuttal. Mixed argument pattern entails all 5 elements. The empirical data were gathered by downloading from Yahoo! Answers 100 discussion threads discussing global warming-a controversial topic providing a fertile ground for arguments for and against. Of the argument patterns, failed openings were most frequent, followed by oppositional, nonoppositional, and mixed patterns. In most cases, the participants grounded their arguments by drawing on personal beliefs and facts. The findings suggest that oppositional and mixed argument patterns provide more opportunities for the assessment of the quality and credibility of answers, as compared to failed openings and nonoppositional argument patterns.
  2. Wu, P.F.; Korfiatis, N.: You scratch someone's back and we'll scratch yours : collective reciprocity in social Q&A communities (2013) 0.04 
    0.044387236 = product of:
  0.08877447 = sum of:
    0.08877447 = product of:
      0.17754894 = sum of:
        0.17754894 = weight(_text_:q in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17754894 = score(doc=1079,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Taking a structuration perspective and integrating reciprocity research in economics, this study examines the dynamics of reciprocal interactions in social question & answer communities. We postulate that individual users of social Q&A constantly adjust their kindness in the direction of the observed benefit and effort of others. Collective reciprocity emerges from this pattern of conditional strategy of reciprocation and helps form a structure that guides the very interactions that give birth to the structure. Based on a large sample of data from Yahoo! Answers, our empirical analysis supports the collective reciprocity premise, showing that the more effort (relative to benefit) an asker contributes to the community, the more likely the community will return the favor. On the other hand, the more benefit (relative to effort) the asker takes from the community, the less likely the community will cooperate in terms of providing answers. We conclude that a structuration view of reciprocity sheds light on the duality of social norms in online communities.
  3. Li, J.; Sun, A.; Xing, Z.: To do or not to do : distill crowdsourced negative caveats to augment api documentation (2018) 0.04 
    0.044387236 = product of:
  0.08877447 = sum of:
    0.08877447 = product of:
      0.17754894 = sum of:
        0.17754894 = weight(_text_:q in 4575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17754894 = score(doc=4575,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 4575, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Negative caveats of application programming interfaces (APIs) are about "how not to use an API," which are often absent from the official API documentation. When these caveats are overlooked, programming errors may emerge from misusing APIs, leading to heavy discussions on Q&A websites like Stack Overflow. If the overlooked caveats could be mined from these discussions, they would be beneficial for programmers to avoid misuse of APIs. However, it is challenging because the discussions are informal, redundant, and diverse. For this, for example, we propose Disca, a novel approach for automatically Distilling desirable API negative caveats from unstructured Q&A discussions. Through sentence selection and prominent term clustering, Disca ensures that distilled caveats are context-independent, prominent, semantically diverse, and nonredundant. Quantitative evaluation in our experiments shows that the proposed Disca significantly outperforms four text-summarization techniques. We also show that the distilled API negative caveats could greatly augment API documentation through qualitative analysis.
  4. Sun, Y.; Wang, N.; Shen, X.-L.; Zhang, X.: Bias effects, synergistic effects, and information contingency effects : developing and testing an extended information adoption model in social Q&A (2019) 0.04 
    0.044387236 = product of:
  0.08877447 = sum of:
    0.08877447 = product of:
      0.17754894 = sum of:
        0.17754894 = weight(_text_:q in 5439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17754894 = score(doc=5439,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 5439, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To advance the theoretical understanding on information adoption, this study tries to extend the information adoption model (IAM) in three ways. First, this study considers the relationship between source credibility and argument quality and the relationship between herding factors and information usefulness (i.e., bias effects). Second, this study proposes the interaction effects of source credibility and argument quality and the interaction effects of herding factors and information usefulness (i.e., synergistic effects). Third, this study explores the moderating role of an information characteristic - search versus experience information (i.e., information contingency effects). The proposed extended information adoption model (EIAM) is empirically tested through a 2 by 2 by 2 experiment in the social Q&A context, and the results confirm most of the hypotheses. Finally, theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed.
  5. Ye, F.Y.: ¬A theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models by wave-heat equations (2011) 0.04 
    0.041848686 = product of:
  0.08369737 = sum of:
    0.08369737 = product of:
      0.16739474 = sum of:
        0.16739474 = weight(_text_:q in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16739474 = score(doc=4464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.57888997 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A simple distribution function f(x, t)=p(x+q)**-ße**alpha*t obeys wave and heat equations, that constructs a theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models, with which we can unify all informetric laws. While its space-type distributions deduce naturally Lotka-type laws in size approaches and Zipf-type laws in rank approaches, its time-type distributions introduce the mechanism of Price-type and Brookes-type laws.
  6. Sieglerschmidt, J.: Wissensordnungen im analogen und im digitalen Zeitalter (2017) 0.04 
    0.041848686 = product of:
  0.08369737 = sum of:
    0.08369737 = product of:
      0.16739474 = sum of:
        0.16739474 = weight(_text_:q in 4026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16739474 = score(doc=4026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.57888997 = fieldWeight in 4026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=0rtGDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA35&dq=inhaltserschlie%C3%9Fung+OR+sacherschlie%C3%9Fung&ots=5u0TwCbFqE&sig=GGw3Coc21CINkone-6Lx8LaSAjY#v=onepage&q=inhaltserschlie%C3%9Fung%20OR%20sacherschlie%C3%9Fung&f=false.
  7. Tran, Q.-T.: Knowledge organization systems and cultural interoperability in open humanitarian settings (2018) 0.04 
    0.041848686 = product of:
  0.08369737 = sum of:
    0.08369737 = product of:
      0.16739474 = sum of:
        0.16739474 = weight(_text_:q in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16739474 = score(doc=4817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.57888997 = fieldWeight in 4817, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. Yoon, J.W.; Chung, E.K.: Understanding image needs in daily life by analyzing questions in a social Q&A site (2011) 0.04 
    0.036989365 = product of:
  0.07397873 = sum of:
    0.07397873 = product of:
      0.14795746 = sum of:
        0.14795746 = weight(_text_:q in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14795746 = score(doc=4922,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Compared with search queries, which are usually composed of a few keywords, natural language questions can demonstrate detailed information needs through searchers' richer expressions. This study aims to provide understandings of ordinary people's image needs in their daily life, by analyzing 474 questions obtained from a social question and answer (social Q&A) site. The study found that image needs reflected through the natural language questions contain several components: context of image needs (motive and intervening variables), image attributes (descriptive metadata, syntactic, and semantic attributes), and associated information (information on known/similar/comparative images and related stories). Characteristics of each component of image needs were analyzed, and accordingly image-indexing guidelines were suggested. Because image needs comprise diverse attributes, a single indexing approach might not support all complex needs for images. Therefore, this study proposes that different indexing approaches should be integrated for enhancing keyword search and browsing effectiveness. Such approaches include descriptive metadata assigned by a creator and/or automatic algorithms, user-assigned tags (or users' reactions), indexing through associated text, and content-based image retrieval.
  9. McTavish, J.: Everyday life classification practices and technologies : applying domain-analysis to lay understandings of food, health, and eating (2015) 0.04 
    0.036989365 = product of:
  0.07397873 = sum of:
    0.07397873 = product of:
      0.14795746 = sum of:
        0.14795746 = weight(_text_:q in 2318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14795746 = score(doc=2318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 2318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Through the application of domain-analytic principles, the purpose of this paper is to explore how participants' understandings of healthy eating are related to their grouping and classification of foods. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 30 food-interested people were asked to (1) sort a series of 56 statements about food, health, and eating on a scale from "most disagree" to "most agree"; (2)complete an open card sort of 50 foods; and (3) classify these 50 foods on a scale from "most unhealthy" to "most healthy". Exercises (1) and (3) involved Q-methodology, which groups people who share similar understandings of a phenomenon. Findings - Participants' understandings of healthy eating - revealed by the first Q-methodology exercise - were related to shared food priorities, values, and beliefs; these understandings were indirectly connected with food identities, which was not expected. This suggests that lay domain knowledge is difficult to capture and must involve other methodologies than those currently employed in domain-analytic research. Research limitations/implications - Although a small sample of food-interested people were recruited, the purpose of this study was not to make generalized claims about perspectives on healthy eating, but to explore how domain knowledge is related to everyday organizational processes. Originality/value - To "classify" in Library and Information Science (LIS) usually involves an engagement with formally established classification systems. In this paper the author suggests an alternative path for LIS scholars: the investigation of everyday life classification practices. Such an approach has value beyond the idiosyncratic, as the author discusses how these practices can inform LIS researchers' strategies for augmenting the messages provided by static classification technologies.
  10. Jeng, W.; DesAutels, S.; He, D.; Li, L.: Information exchange on an academic social networking site : a multidiscipline comparison on researchgate Q&A (2017) 0.04 
    0.036989365 = product of:
  0.07397873 = sum of:
    0.07397873 = product of:
      0.14795746 = sum of:
        0.14795746 = weight(_text_:q in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14795746 = score(doc=3431,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 3431, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The increasing popularity of academic social networking sites (ASNSs) requires studies on the usage of ASNSs among scholars and evaluations of the effectiveness of these ASNSs. However, it is unclear whether current ASNSs have fulfilled their design goal, as scholars' actual online interactions on these platforms remain unexplored. To fill the gap, this article presents a study based on data collected from ResearchGate. Adopting a mixed-method design by conducting qualitative content analysis and statistical analysis on 1,128 posts collected from ResearchGate Q&A, we examine how scholars exchange information and resources, and how their practices vary across three distinct disciplines: library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics. Our results show that the effect of a questioner's intention (i.e., seeking information or discussion) is greater than disciplinary factors in some circumstances. Across the three disciplines, responses to questions provide various resources, including experts' contact details, citations, links to Wikipedia, images, and so on. We further discuss several implications of the understanding of scholarly information exchange and the design of better academic social networking interfaces, which should stimulate scholarly interactions by minimizing confusion, improving the clarity of questions, and promoting scholarly content management.
  11. Fallaw, C.; Dunham, E.; Wickes, E.; Strong, D.; Stein, A.; Zhang, Q.; Rimkus, K.; ill Ingram, B.; Imker, H.J.: Overly honest data repository development (2016) 0.04 
    0.036617603 = product of:
  0.07323521 = sum of:
    0.07323521 = product of:
      0.14647041 = sum of:
        0.14647041 = weight(_text_:q in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14647041 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  12. Resnick, M.P.; Cardillo, E.; Jamoulle, M.; Araujo Novaes, M. de; Shamenek, F.S.: Towards the semantic annotation and the prevention of the loss of information of second opinion requests from rural Brazilian primary healthcare providers : the Q-codes use case - a work in progress (2018) 0.04 
    0.036617603 = product of:
  0.07323521 = sum of:
    0.07323521 = product of:
      0.14647041 = sum of:
        0.14647041 = weight(_text_:q in 4827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14647041 = score(doc=4827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 4827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Sandberg, J.; Jin, Q.: How should catalogers provide authority control for journal article authors? : Name identifiers in the linked data world (2016) 0.04 
    0.036617603 = product of:
  0.07323521 = sum of:
    0.07323521 = product of:
      0.14647041 = sum of:
        0.14647041 = weight(_text_:q in 5138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14647041 = score(doc=5138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 5138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Dandan, Z.; Zheng, D.; Dongfeng, Q.: ¬A survey of RDA in Asia and a vision for future development (2019) 0.04 
    0.036617603 = product of:
  0.07323521 = sum of:
    0.07323521 = product of:
      0.14647041 = sum of:
        0.14647041 = weight(_text_:q in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14647041 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Nguyen, P.H.P.; Kaneiwa, K.; Nguyen, M.-Q.: Ontology inferencing rules and operations in conceptual structure theory (2010) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. Yuan, Y.C.; Zhao, X.; Liao, Q.; Chi, C.: ¬The use of different information and communication technologies to support knowledge sharing in organizations : from e-mail to micro-blogging (2013) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 1008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=1008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 1008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Cao, Q.; Lu, Y.; Dong, D.; Tang, Z.; Li, Y.: ¬The roles of bridging and bonding in social media communities (2013) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=1009,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Jiang, S.; Gao, Q.; Chen, H.; Roco, M.C.: ¬The roles of sharing, transfer, and public funding in nanotechnology knowledge-diffusion networks (2015) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=1823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 1823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z.: Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords : a case study of patient adherence research (2016) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  20. Yan, E.; Yu, Q.: Using path-based approaches to examine the dynamic structure of discipline-level citation networks (2016) 0.03 
    0.031386513 = product of:
  0.06277303 = sum of:
    0.06277303 = product of:
      0.12554605 = sum of:
        0.12554605 = weight(_text_:q in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12554605 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Languages

  • e 524
  • d 180
  • a 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 624
  • el 60
  • m 46
  • s 16
  • x 12
  • r 7
  • b 5
  • i 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications