Search (1298 results, page 1 of 65)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.10 
    0.100285746 = product of:
  0.45128587 = sum of:
    0.22564293 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22564293 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30111524 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.22564293 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22564293 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30111524 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Wolfram, D.: Applied informetrics for information retrieval research (2003) 0.05 
    0.045022488 = product of:
  0.13506746 = sum of:
    0.07462976 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07462976 = score(doc=4589,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.6946405 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
    0.044153035 = weight(_text_:use in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044153035 = score(doc=4589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.40597942 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
    0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016284661 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The author demonstrates how informetric analysis of information retrieval system content and use provides valuable insights that have applications for the modelling, design, and evaluation of information retrieval systems.
  3. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.03 
    0.032151073 = product of:
  0.072339915 = sum of:
    0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021543756 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.01909546 = weight(_text_:of in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01909546 = score(doc=2742,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.009624182 = product of:
      0.028872546 = sum of:
        0.028872546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028872546 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Abstract
    In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.557-570
  4. Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998) 0.03 
    0.027859783 = product of:
  0.08357935 = sum of:
    0.03554538 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03554538 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.022278037 = weight(_text_:of in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022278037 = score(doc=2809,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing
  5. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.03 
    0.025783883 = product of:
  0.058013737 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.013570553 = weight(_text_:of in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013570553 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.008092954 = product of:
      0.02427886 = sum of:
        0.02427886 = weight(_text_:29 in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02427886 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Abstract
    We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:01:01
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308
  6. Jiang, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y.: Recovering uncaptured citations in a scholarly network : a two-step citation analysis to estimate publication importance (2016) 0.03 
    0.025783883 = product of:
  0.058013737 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
    0.013570553 = weight(_text_:of in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013570553 = score(doc=3018,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
    0.008092954 = product of:
      0.02427886 = sum of:
        0.02427886 = weight(_text_:29 in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02427886 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Abstract
    The citation relationships between publications, which are significant for assessing the importance of scholarly components within a network, have been used for various scientific applications. Missing citation metadata in scholarly databases, however, create problems for classical citation-based ranking algorithms and challenge the performance of citation-based retrieval systems. In this research, we utilize a two-step citation analysis method to investigate the importance of publications for which citation information is partially missing. First, we calculate the importance of the author and then use his importance to estimate the publication importance for some selected articles. To evaluate this method, we designed a simulation experiment-"random citation-missing"-to test the two-step citation analysis that we carried out with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). In this experiment, we simulated different scenarios in a large-scale scientific digital library, from high-quality citation data, to very poor quality data, The results show that a two-step citation analysis can effectively uncover the importance of publications in different situations. More importantly, we found that the optimized impact from the importance of an author (first step) is exponentially increased when the quality of citation decreases. The findings from this study can further enhance citation-based publication-ranking algorithms for real-world applications.
    Date
    12. 6.2016 20:31:29
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1722-1735
  7. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.03 
    0.025326958 = product of:
  0.07598087 = sum of:
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.015232908 = weight(_text_:of in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015232908 = score(doc=135,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.038671453 = product of:
      0.058007177 = sum of:
        0.029134631 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029134631 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
        0.028872546 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028872546 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    17.12.2006 19:44:29
  8. Rees-Potter, L.K.: Dynamic thesaural systems : a bibliometric study of terminological and conceptual change in sociology and economics with application to the design of dynamic thesaural systems (1989) 0.02 
    0.023818914 = product of:
  0.07145674 = sum of:
    0.028725008 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725008 = score(doc=5059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
    0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029435357 = score(doc=5059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
    0.013296372 = weight(_text_:of in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013296372 = score(doc=5059,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Thesauri have been used in the library and information science field to provide a standard descriptor language for indexers or searchers to use in an informations storage and retrieval system. One difficulty has been the maintenance and updating of thesauri since terms used to describe concepts change over time and vary between users. This study investigates a mechanism by which thesauri can be updated and maintained using citation, co-citation analysis and citation context analysis.
  9. Wiggers, G.; Verberne, S.; Loon, W. van; Zwenne, G.-J.: Bibliometric-enhanced legal information retrieval : combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance (2023) 0.02 
    0.023158565 = product of:
  0.069475695 = sum of:
    0.03590626 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03590626 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=1022,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.015172338 = weight(_text_:of in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015172338 = score(doc=1022,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.1010-1025
  10. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.023037234 = product of:
  0.10366755 = sum of:
    0.013434161 = weight(_text_:of in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013434161 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
    0.090233386 = product of:
      0.13535008 = sum of:
        0.0679808 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0679808 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.067369275 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067369275 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
  11. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.021926936 = product of:
  0.049335606 = sum of:
    0.014362504 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014362504 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.014717679 = weight(_text_:use in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014717679 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.013839302 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013839302 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.0064161215 = product of:
      0.019248364 = sum of:
        0.019248364 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019248364 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  12. Egghe, L.: Type/Token-Taken informetrics (2003) 0.02 
    0.021910243 = product of:
  0.06573073 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
    0.031864714 = weight(_text_:use in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031864714 = score(doc=1608,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
    0.015912883 = weight(_text_:of in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015912883 = score(doc=1608,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Type/Token-Taken informetrics is a new part of informetrics that studies the use of items rather than the items itself. Here, items are the objects that are produced by the sources (e.g., journals producing articles, authors producing papers, etc.). In linguistics a source is also called a type (e.g., a word), and an item a token (e.g., the use of words in texts). In informetrics, types that occur often, for example, in a database will also be requested often, for example, in information retrieval. The relative use of these occurrences will be higher than their relative occurrences itself; hence, the name Type/ Token-Taken informetrics. This article studies the frequency distribution of Type/Token-Taken informetrics, starting from the one of Type/Token informetrics (i.e., source-item relationships). We are also studying the average number my* of item uses in Type/Token-Taken informetrics and compare this with the classical average number my in Type/Token informetrics. We show that my* >= my always, and that my* is an increasing function of my. A method is presented to actually calculate my* from my, and a given a, which is the exponent in Lotka's frequency distribution of Type/Token informetrics. We leave open the problem of developing non-Lotkaian Type/TokenTaken informetrics.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.603-610
  13. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.02 
    0.021766666 = product of:
  0.065299995 = sum of:
    0.03893932 = weight(_text_:use in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03893932 = score(doc=3271,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3580402 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
    0.019944556 = weight(_text_:of in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019944556 = score(doc=3271,freq=54.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
            54.0 = termFreq=54.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
    0.0064161215 = product of:
      0.019248364 = sum of:
        0.019248364 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019248364 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.84-94
  14. Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011) 0.02 
    0.021663396 = product of:
  0.064990185 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.031864714 = weight(_text_:use in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031864714 = score(doc=4143,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.015172338 = weight(_text_:of in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015172338 = score(doc=4143,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.185-204
  15. Tsay, M.-y.; Shu, Z.-y.: Journal bibliometric analysis : a case study on the Journal of Documentation (2011) 0.02 
    0.02099277 = product of:
  0.06297831 = sum of:
    0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025389558 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.01919166 = weight(_text_:of in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01919166 = score(doc=294,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.
    Object
    Journal of documentation
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.5, S.806-822
  16. Colavizza, G.; Boyack, K.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.: ¬The closer the better : similarity of publication pairs at different cocitation levels (2018) 0.02 
    0.020905245 = product of:
  0.06271573 = sum of:
    0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021543756 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.01909546 = weight(_text_:of in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01909546 = score(doc=4214,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.600-609
  17. Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996) 0.02 
    0.020838758 = product of:
  0.06251627 = sum of:
    0.030467471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030467471 = score(doc=4216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
    0.009972278 = weight(_text_:of in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009972278 = score(doc=4216,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.311-325
  18. Bensman, S.J.: Urquhart's and Garfield's laws : the British controversy over their validity (2001) 0.02 
    0.02036566 = product of:
  0.061096977 = sum of:
    0.032909732 = weight(_text_:use in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032909732 = score(doc=6026,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.30259922 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
    0.021712884 = weight(_text_:of in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021712884 = score(doc=6026,freq=64.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
          8.0 = tf(freq=64.0), with freq of:
            64.0 = termFreq=64.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
    0.006474362 = product of:
      0.019423086 = sum of:
        0.019423086 = weight(_text_:29 in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019423086 = score(doc=6026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The British controversy over the validity of Urquhart's and Garfield's Laws during the 1970s constitutes an important episode in the formulation of the probability structure of human knowledge. This controversy took place within the historical context of the convergence of two scientific revolutions-the bibliometric and the biometric-that had been launched in Britain. The preceding decades had witnessed major breakthroughs in understanding the probability distributions underlying the use of human knowledge. Two of the most important of these breakthroughs were the laws posited by Donald J. Urquhart and Eugene Garfield, who played major roles in establishing the institutional bases of the bibliometric revolution. For his part, Urquhart began his realization of S. C. Bradford's concept of a national science library by analyzing the borrowing of journals on interlibrary loan from the Science Museum Library in 1956. He found that 10% of the journals accounted for 80% of the loans and formulated Urquhart's Law, by which the interlibrary use of a journal is a measure of its total use. This law underlay the operations of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLLST), which Urquhart founded. The NLLST became the British Library Lending Division (BLLD) and ultimately the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC). In contrast, Garfield did a study of 1969 journal citations as part of the process of creating the Science Citation Index (SCI), formulating his Law of Concentration, by which the bulk of the information needs in science can be satisfied by a relatively small, multidisciplinary core of journals. This law became the operational principle of the Institute for Scientif ic Information created by Garfield. A study at the BLLD under Urquhart's successor, Maurice B. Line, found low correlations of NLLST use with SCI citations, and publication of this study started a major controversy, during which both laws were called into question. The study was based on the faulty use of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the controversy over it was instrumental in causing B. C. Brookes to investigate bibliometric laws as probabilistic phenomena and begin to link the bibliometric with the biometric revolution. This paper concludes with a resolution of the controversy by means of a statistical technique that incorporates Brookes' criticism of the Spearman rank-correlation method and demonstrates the mutual supportiveness of the two laws
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:02:27
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.714-724
  19. Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012) 0.02 
    0.020292338 = product of:
  0.060877014 = sum of:
    0.031220913 = weight(_text_:use in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031220913 = score(doc=2741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
    0.019944556 = weight(_text_:of in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019944556 = score(doc=2741,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
    0.009711544 = product of:
      0.029134631 = sum of:
        0.029134631 = weight(_text_:29 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029134631 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
    Date
    29. 1.2016 19:00:16
    Object
    Web of Science
  20. Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.; LaBarre, K.: Visible, Less Visible, and Invisible Work : Patterns of Collaboration in 20th Century Chemistry (2004) 0.02 
    0.019788038 = product of:
  0.05936411 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.022278037 = weight(_text_:of in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022278037 = score(doc=2094,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.011330134 = product of:
      0.0339904 = sum of:
        0.0339904 = weight(_text_:29 in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0339904 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th century chemistry by analyzing and classifying over 2,000 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing- one that provides a revealing insight into the structural nature of subauthorship collaboration in science. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of teamwork and the increasing division of labor in contemporary chemistry. The results of this study are compared with the findings of a parallel study of collaboration in both the social sciences and the humanities.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 9:42:14
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.160-168

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 1255
  • el 19
  • s 19
  • m 17
  • r 4
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications