Search (87 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=13,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scientific documents are more or less important in relation to give subjects and this importance can be measured. An empirical investigation into philosophical information was carried out using a weighting algorithm developed by N. Henrichs which results in a distribution by weighting of documents on an average philosophical subject. With the aid of statistical methods a threshold value can be obtained that separates the important and unimportant documents on a subject. The knowledge of theis threshold value is important for various practical and theoretic questions: providing new possibilities for research strategy in information retrieval; evaluation of the 'titleworthiness' of subjects by comparison of document titles and themes for which the document at hand is important; and making available data on thematic trends for scientific results

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2523)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Insbesondere durch die Suchmaschinen im Internet wurde die Aufmerksamkeit der Information Professionals auf Retrievalmöglichkeiten jenseits der Booleschen Operatoren gelenkt. Auch die kommerziellen Online-Archive entwickelten in den letzten Jahren natürlichsprachige Suchoptionen. Lexis-Nexis erhielt im Laufe des Jahres 1998 2 Patente für Module automatischer Indexierung erteilt.

0.0014573209 = product of:
  0.008743925 = sum of:
    0.008743925 = weight(_text_:in in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008743925 = score(doc=5249,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=3283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information Markets is a compendium of the i-commerce, the commerce with digital information, content as well as software. Information Markets is a comprehensive overview of the state of the art of economic and information science endeavors on the markets of digital information. It provides a strategic guideline for information providers how to analyse their market environment and how to develop possible strategic actions. It is a book for information professionals, both for students of LIS (Library and Information Science), CIS (Computer and Information Science) or Information Management curricula and for practitioners as well as managers in these fields.

Footnote

Rez. in : JASIST 63(2012) no.7, S.1477-1479 ( W. Peekhaus)

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The author stresses the need for a general, overall theory of cognitive psychological processes for cognitive science. The relevance of the Graz-school theorie on the 'production of ideas' is then examined as an attempt to provide such a framework. In Graz-school, at the beginning of 20th century, representation ('Vorstellung') was the foundational aspect of all the cognitive processes. As an example of an analysis of the origin of representation Stephan Witasek's theory of sensation is surveyed. The explanation of the origin of representations is also theoretically and practically important for cognitive science

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 4251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=4251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4251)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 70(2019) no.7, S.769-771 (Mohammed M. Aman)