Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Willett, P."
  1. Robertson, A.M.; Willett, P.: Identification of word-variants in historical text databases : report for the period October 1990 to September 1992 (1994) 0.00
    0.001682769 = product of:
      0.010096614 = sum of:
        0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010096614 = score(doc=939,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 939, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=939)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Databases of historical texts are increasingly becoming available for end user searching via online or CD-ROM databases. Many of the words in these databases are spelt differently from today with resultant loss of retrieval. The project evaluated a range of techniques that can suggest historical variants of modern language query words, the work deriving from earlier work on spelling correction
  2. Willett, P.: From chemical documentation to chemoinformatics : 50 years of chemical information science (2009) 0.00
    0.001682769 = product of:
      0.010096614 = sum of:
        0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010096614 = score(doc=3656,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This paper summarizes the historical development of the discipline that is now called 'chemoinformatics'. It shows how this has evolved, principally as a result of technological developments in chemistry and biology during the past decade, from long-established techniques for the modelling and searching of chemical molecules. A total of 30 papers, the earliest dating back to 1957, are briefly summarized to highlight some of the key publications and to show the development of the discipline.
    Source
    Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  3. Spezi, V.; Wakeling, S.; Pinfield, S.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Willett, P.: Open-access mega-journals : the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? a review (2017) 0.00
    0.0016629322 = product of:
      0.009977593 = sum of:
        0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009977593 = score(doc=3548,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.
  4. Li, X.; Cox, A.; Ford, N.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Willett, P.: Knowledge construction by users : a content analysis framework and a knowledge construction process model for virtual product user communities (2017) 0.00
    0.0014873719 = product of:
      0.008924231 = sum of:
        0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008924231 = score(doc=3574,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.
  5. Li, J.; Willett, P.: ArticleRank : a PageRank-based alternative to numbers of citations for analysing citation networks (2009) 0.00
    0.0012881019 = product of:
      0.007728611 = sum of:
        0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007728611 = score(doc=751,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations. Design/methodology/approach - ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets - a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self-citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation - using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database. Findings - ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited and ArticleRank is greatest for the most heavily cited articles in a dataset. Originality/value - This is a novel application of the PageRank algorithm.
  6. Shaw, R.J.; Willett, P.: On the non-random nature of nearest-neighbour document clusters (1993) 0.00
    0.0011898974 = product of:
      0.0071393843 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=5817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5817, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5817)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    It has been suggested that the observed values of retrieval effectiveness that are obtained in searches of files of nearest-neighbour clusters can be explained by assuming that the pairwise inter-document similarities used to construct the clusters have been generated randomly. Such similarities are significantly different from those obtained by a random generation procedure
  7. Ingwersen, P.; Willett, P.: ¬An introduction to algorithmic and cognitive approaches for information retrieval (1995) 0.00
    0.0011898974 = product of:
      0.0071393843 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This paper provides an over-view of 2, complementary approaches to the design and implementation of information retrieval systems. The first approach focuses on the algorithms and data structures that are needed to maximise the effectiveness and the efficiency of the searches that can be carried out on text databases, while the second adopts a cognitive approach that focuses on the role of the user and of the knowledge sources involved in information retrieval. The paper argues for an holistic view of information retrieval that is capable of encompassing both of these approaches
  8. Robertson, M.; Willett, P.: ¬An upperbound to the performance of ranked output searching : optimal weighting of query terms using a genetic algorithms (1996) 0.00
    0.0011898974 = product of:
      0.0071393843 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 6977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=6977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 6977, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6977)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Describes the development of a genetic algorithm (GA) for the assignment of weights to query terms in a ranked output document retrieval system. The GA involves a fitness function that is based on full relevance information, and the rankings resulting from the use of these weights are compared with the Robertson-Sparck Jones F4 retrospective relevance weight
  9. Wakeling, S.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Willett, P.; Paramita, M.: Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors : results of a large-scale survey (2019) 0.00
    0.0010517307 = product of:
      0.006310384 = sum of:
        0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006310384 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.
  10. Robertson, A.M.; Willett, P.: Generation of equifrequent groups of words using a genetic algorithm (1994) 0.00
    0.0010411602 = product of:
      0.006246961 = sum of:
        0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 8158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006246961 = score(doc=8158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 8158, 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=8158)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Genetic algorithms are a class of non-deterministic algorithms that derive from Darwinian evolution and that provide good, though not necessarily optimal, solutions to combinatorial problems. We describe their application to the identification of characteristics that occur approximately equifrequently in a database, using two different methods for the creation of the chromosome data structures that lie at the heart of a genetic algortihm. Experiments with files of English and Turkish text suggest that the genetic algorithm developed here can produce results superior to those produced by existing non-deterministic algorithms; however, the results are inferior to those produced by an existing deterministic algorithm
  11. Wade, S.J.; Willett, P.; Bawden, D.: SIBRIS : the Sandwich Interactive Browsing and Ranking Information System (1989) 0.00
    0.0010411602 = product of:
      0.006246961 = sum of:
        0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006246961 = score(doc=2828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2828, 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=2828)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    SIBRIS (Sandwich Interactive Browsing and Ranking Information System) is an interactive text retrieval system which has been developed to support the browsing of library and product files at Pfizer Central Research, Sandwich, UK. Once an initial ranking has been produced, the system will allow the user to select any document displayed on the screen at any point during the browse and to use that as the basis for another search. Facilities have been included to enable the user to keep track of the browse and to facilitate backtracking, thus allowing the user to move away from the original query to wander in and out of different areas of interest.