Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.05
    0.05311083 = product of:
      0.14162888 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
        0.07259893 = weight(_text_:use in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07259893 = score(doc=3007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.5741416 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=3007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3007, 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=3007)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    A simple heuristic method is proposed to use an existing thesaurus for weighted indexing
    Source
    Annals of library science and documentation. 38(1991) no.4, S.127-130
  2. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Topological aspects of information retrieval (1998) 0.03
    0.03394952 = product of:
      0.09053206 = sum of:
        0.06534432 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534432 = score(doc=2157,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=2157,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.13, S.1144-1160
  3. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.03
    0.03054534 = product of:
      0.06109068 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.016090471 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016090471 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  4. Kretschmer, H.; Rousseau, R.: Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law : in and out of context (2001) 0.02
    0.02023685 = product of:
      0.053964935 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 5205, 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=5205)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=5205,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=5205,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Fractional counting of authors of multi-authored papers has been shown to lead to a breakdown of Lotka's Law despite its robust character under most circumstances. Kretschmer and Rousseau use the normal count method of full credit for each author on two five-year bibliographies from each of 13 Dutch physics institutes where high co-authorship is a common occurrence. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were preformed to see if the Lotka distribution fit the data. All bibliographies up to 40 authors fit acceptably; no bibliography with a paper with over 100 authors fits the distribution. The underlying traditional "success breeds success" mechanism assumes new items on a one by one basis, but Egghe's generalized model would still account for the process. It seems unlikely that Lotka's Law will hold in a high co-authorship environment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.8, S.610-614
  5. Liu, Y.; Rafols, I.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion (2012) 0.02
    0.020046439 = product of:
      0.05345717 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
        0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021168415 = score(doc=297,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.1, S.31-44
  6. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A theoretical study of recall and precision using a topological approach to information retrieval (1998) 0.02
    0.019854382 = product of:
      0.07941753 = sum of:
        0.066795126 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066795126 = score(doc=3267,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
        0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012622404 = score(doc=3267,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Topologies for information retrieval systems are generated by certain subsets, called retrievals. Shows how recall and precision can be expressed using only retrievals. Investigates different types of retrieval systems: both threshold systems and close match systems and both optimal and non optimal retrieval. Highlights the relation with the hypergeometric and some non-standard distributions
  7. Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002) 0.02
    0.019706778 = product of:
      0.052551407 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 816, 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=816)
        0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021604925 = score(doc=816,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=816,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
  8. Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.; Rowlands, I.: Diffusion factors (2006) 0.02
    0.019432059 = product of:
      0.05181882 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=5587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5587, 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=5587)
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=5587,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=5587,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.58-72
  9. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals : taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016) 0.02
    0.019314842 = product of:
      0.051506247 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2902, 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=2902)
        0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02231347 = score(doc=2902,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2902, 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=2902)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=2902,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1257-1265
  10. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012) 0.02
    0.018812343 = product of:
      0.05016625 = sum of:
        0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011156735 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
        0.0110352645 = product of:
          0.022070529 = sum of:
            0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022070529 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02797425 = product of:
          0.0559485 = sum of:
            0.0559485 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0559485 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Date
    14. 2.2012 12:53:22
    Footnote
    This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429
  11. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.02
    0.018499356 = product of:
      0.049331617 = sum of:
        0.02592591 = weight(_text_:of in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02592591 = score(doc=7659,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  12. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.02
    0.01812557 = product of:
      0.04833485 = sum of:
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=5270,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  13. Yang, B.; Rousseau, R.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.: How important is scientific software in bioinformatics research? : a comparative study between international and Chinese research communities (2018) 0.02
    0.017880592 = product of:
      0.04768158 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
        0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0167351 = score(doc=4461,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=4461,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1122-1133
  14. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations : a case study using ESI-fields as unit of diffusion (2010) 0.02
    0.017028242 = product of:
      0.045408648 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=3334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3334, 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=3334)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=3334,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3334, 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=3334)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=3334,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3334, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3334)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Two forms of diffusion are studied: diffusion by publications, originating from the fact that a group publishes in different fields; and diffusion by citations, originating from the fact that the group's publications are cited in different fields. The first form of diffusion originates from an internal mechanism by which the group itself expands its own borders. The second form is partly driven by an external mechanism, in the sense that other fields use or become interested in the original group's expertise, and partly by the group's internal dynamism, in the sense that their articles, being published in more and more fields, have the potential to be applied in these other fields. In this contribution, we focus on basic counting measures as measures of diffusion. We introduce the notions of field diffusion breadth, defined as the number of for Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields in which a set of articles is cited, and field diffusion intensity, defined as the number of citing articles in one particular ESI field. Combined effects of publications and citations can be measured by the Gini evenness measure. Our approach is illustrated by a study of mathematics at Tongji University (Shanghai, China).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.340-351
  15. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Duality in information retrieval and the hypegeometric distribution (1997) 0.01
    0.014039168 = product of:
      0.056156673 = sum of:
        0.047231287 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047231287 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
        0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008925388 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Asserts that duality is an important topic in informetrics, especially in connection with the classical informetric laws. Yet this concept is less studied in information retrieval. It deals with the unification or symmetry between queries and documents, search formulation versus indexing, and relevant versus retrieved documents. Elaborates these ideas and highlights the connection with the hypergeometric distribution
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.5, S.499-496
  16. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas : the case of fiber optics communication (2012) 0.01
    0.013343668 = product of:
      0.05337467 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2723, 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=2723)
        0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02342914 = score(doc=2723,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The research question studied in this contribution is how to find an adequate representation to describe the diffusion of scientific ideas over time. We claim that citation data, at least of articles that act as concept symbols, can be considered to contain this information. As a case study we show how the founding article by Nobel Prize winner Kao illustrates the evolution of the field of fiber optics communication. We use a continuous description of discrete citation data in order to accentuate turning points and breakthroughs in the history of this field. Applying the principles explained in this contribution informetrics may reveal the trajectories along which science is developing.
  17. Harvey, L.; Rousseau, R.: Development of text-editing skill : from semantic and syntactic mappings to procedures (1995) 0.01
    0.013018559 = product of:
      0.052074235 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=3845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 3845, 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=3845)
        0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017850775 = score(doc=3845,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3845, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3845)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Considers whether joint syntax (a single step linking object and procedure) or disjoint, 2 step, processes are best suited to particular tasks of text editing. Finds that specific procedures are not necessarily faster to use than general ones. users of joint editors consulted the help menu less often and for longer and experienced a greater workload than users of disjoint editors. The experiment shows that general text editing procedures obeying a disjoint systax minimize workload. Specific objects and joint syntax are advanced features that should be reserved for experienced users
  18. Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Yield sequences as journal attractivity indicators : "payback times" for Science and Nature (2008) 0.01
    0.012214108 = product of:
      0.048856433 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=1737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1737, 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=1737)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=1737,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1737, 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=1737)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The yield period of a journal is defined as the time needed to accumulate the same number of citations as the number of references included during the period of study. Yield sequences are proposed as journal attractivity indicators describing dynamic characteristics of a journal. This paper aims to investigate their use. Design/methodology/approach - As a case study the yield sequences of the journals Nature and Science from 1955 onward are determined. Similarities and dissimilarities between these sequences are discussed and factors affecting yield periods are determined. Findings - The study finds that yield sequences make dynamic aspects of a journal visible, as reflected through citations. Exceptional circumstances (here the publication of Laemmli's paper in 1970 in the journal Nature) become clearly visible. The average number of references per article, the citation distribution and the size of the database used to collect citations are factors influencing yield sequences. Originality/value - A new dynamic indicator for the study of journals is introduced.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.2, S.229-245
  19. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks (2003) 0.01
    0.010748647 = product of:
      0.04299459 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=5157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5157, 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=5157)
        0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021604925 = score(doc=5157,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 5157, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5157)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Measurement of the degree of interconnectedness in graph like networks of hyperlinks or citations can indicate the existence of research fields and assist in comparative evaluation of research efforts. In this issue we begin with Egghe and Rousseau who review compactness measures and investigate the compactness of a network as a weighted graph with dissimilarity values characterizing the arcs between nodes. They make use of a generalization of the Botofogo, Rivlin, Shneiderman, (BRS) compaction measure which treats the distance between unreachable nodes not as infinity but rather as the number of nodes in the network. The dissimilarity values are determined by summing the reciprocals of the weights of the arcs in the shortest chain between two nodes where no weight is smaller than one. The BRS measure is then the maximum value for the sum of the dissimilarity measures less the actual sum divided by the difference between the maximum and minimum. The Wiener index, the sum of all elements in the dissimilarity matrix divided by two, is then computed for Small's particle physics co-citation data as well as the BRS measure, the dissimilarity values and shortest paths. The compactness measure for the weighted network is smaller than for the un-weighted. When the bibliographic coupling network is utilized it is shown to be less compact than the co-citation network which indicates that the new measure produces results that confirm to an obvious case.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.193-202
  20. Rousseau, R.: Robert Fairthorne and the empirical power laws (2005) 0.01
    0.009206562 = product of:
      0.03682625 = sum of:
        0.025901893 = weight(_text_:of in 4398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025901893 = score(doc=4398,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 4398, 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=4398)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 4398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=4398,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 4398, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4398)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Aims to review Fairthorne's classic article "Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford-Zipf-Mandelbrot) for bibliometric description and prediction" (Journal of Documentation, Vol. 25, pp. 319-343, 1969), as part of a series marking the Journal of Documentation's 60th anniversary. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of article content, qualitative evaluation of its subsequent impact, citation analysis, and diffusion analysis. Findings - The content, further developments and influence on the field of informetrics of this landmark paper are explained. Originality/value - A review is given of the contents of Fairthorne's original article and its influence on the field of informetrics. Its transdisciplinary reception is measured through a diffusion analysis.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.2, S.194-202