Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 417, 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=417)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: NACKE, O.: Zitatenanalyse im engeren Sinne; GERDEL, W.: Datentechnische Methoden in der Referenzanalyse; EISENHARDT, O.-H.: Ergebnisse der Referenzanalyse; KRUG, G.: List-Analyse; LANGE, H.: Requestanalyse; HENZLER, R.G.: Bibliometrische Methoden der Termanalyse; NACKE, O.: Fehlerquellen bei der Zitatenanalyse

0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Stellungnahme zu: Brooks, T.A.: Private acts and private objects: an investigation of citer motivations und Brooks, T.A.: Evidence of complex citer motivation

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 7928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=7928,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 7928, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7928)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Problems in the cataloging of conference proceedings, and their treatment by some of the major cataloging codes, are briefly reviewed. To determine how conference papers are cited in the literature, and thus how researchers are likely to be seeking them in the catalog, fifty conference papers in the field of chemistry, delivered in 1970 and subsequently published, were searches in the Science Citation Index covering a ten-year period. The citations to the papers were examined to ascertain the implications of current citation practices for the cataloging of conference proceedings. The results suggest that conference proceedings are customarily cited like any other work of collective authorship and that the conference name is of little value as an access point

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 4170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=4170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4170)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 5656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=5656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 5656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5656)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 6900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=6900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 6900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6900)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 7774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=7774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 7774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7774)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 7775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=7775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 7775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7775)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 7777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=7777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 7777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7777)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023042266 = product of:
  0.01382536 = sum of:
    0.01382536 = weight(_text_:in in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01382536 = score(doc=3632,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23282567 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.

Footnote

Original in: Science 122 (1955) S.108-111.

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2290,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2288, 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=2288)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output