-
Shifman, L.; Thelwall, M.: Assessing global diffusion with Web memetics : the spread and evolution of a popular joke (2009)
0.03
0.029778086 = product of:
0.11911234 = sum of:
0.11911234 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11911234 = score(doc=3303,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.6081582 = fieldWeight in 3303, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3303)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Memes are small units of culture, analogous to genes, which flow from person to person by copying or imitation. More than any previous medium, the Internet has the technical capabilities for global meme diffusion. Yet, to spread globally, memes need to negotiate their way through cultural and linguistic borders. This article introduces a new broad method, Web memetics, comprising extensive Web searches and combined quantitative and qualitative analyses, to identify and assess: (a) the different versions of a meme, (b) its evolution online, and (c) its Web presence and translation into common Internet languages. This method is demonstrated through one extensively circulated joke about men, women, and computers. The results show that the joke has mutated into several different versions and is widely translated, and that translations incorporate small, local adaptations while retaining the English versions' fundamental components. In conclusion, Web memetics has demonstrated its ability to identify and track the evolution and spread of memes online, with interesting results, albeit for only one case study.
-
Thelwall, M.; Price, L.: Language evolution and the spread of ideas on the Web : a procedure for identifying emergent hybrid word (2006)
0.02
0.024313705 = product of:
0.09725482 = sum of:
0.09725482 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09725482 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Word usage is of interest to linguists for its own sake as well as to social scientists and others who seek to track the spread of ideas, for example, in public debates over political decisions. The historical evolution of language can be analyzed with the tools of corpus linguistics through evolving corpora and the Web. But word usage statistics can only be gathered for known words. In this article, techniques are described and tested for identifying new words from the Web, focusing on the case when the words are related to a topic and have a hybrid form with a common sequence of letters. The results highlight the need to employ a combination of search techniques and show the wide potential of hybrid word family investigations in linguistics and social science.
-
Thelwall, M.: Webometrics (2009)
0.02
0.017192384 = product of:
0.06876954 = sum of:
0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06876954 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006)
0.01
0.014326988 = product of:
0.05730795 = sum of:
0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05730795 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018)
0.01
0.014326988 = product of:
0.05730795 = sum of:
0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05730795 = score(doc=4015,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Thelwall, M.; Levitt, J.M.: National scientific performance evolution patterns : retrenchment, successful expansion, or overextension (2018)
0.01
0.014326988 = product of:
0.05730795 = sum of:
0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05730795 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Thelwall, M.: Female citation impact superiority 1996-2018 in six out of seven English-speaking nations (2020)
0.01
0.014326988 = product of:
0.05730795 = sum of:
0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05730795 = score(doc=5948,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5948, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5948)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics. This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact 1996-2018 for six million articles from seven large English-speaking nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. The results show that a small female citation advantage has been the norm over time for all these countries except the USA, where there has been no practical difference. The female citation advantage is largest, and statistically significant in most years, for Australia and the UK. This suggests that any academic bias against citing female-authored research cannot explain current employment inequalities. Nevertheless, comparisons using recent citation data, or avoiding it altogether, during appointments or promotion may disadvantage females in some countries by underestimating the likely greater impact of their work, especially in the long term.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.00
0.0033399842 = product of:
0.013359937 = sum of:
0.013359937 = product of:
0.04007981 = sum of:
0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04007981 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.002952157 = product of:
0.011808628 = sum of:
0.011808628 = product of:
0.035425883 = sum of:
0.035425883 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035425883 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.002504988 = product of:
0.010019952 = sum of:
0.010019952 = product of:
0.030059857 = sum of:
0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030059857 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
0.002504988 = product of:
0.010019952 = sum of:
0.010019952 = product of:
0.030059857 = sum of:
0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030059857 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.002504988 = product of:
0.010019952 = sum of:
0.010019952 = product of:
0.030059857 = sum of:
0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030059857 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.002504988 = product of:
0.010019952 = sum of:
0.010019952 = product of:
0.030059857 = sum of:
0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030059857 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.00
0.0020874902 = product of:
0.008349961 = sum of:
0.008349961 = product of:
0.025049882 = sum of:
0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025049882 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03697776 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
