-
Buzydlowski, J.W.; White, H.D.; Lin, X.: Term Co-occurrence Analysis as an Interface for Digital Libraries (2002)
0.04
0.03676667 = product of:
0.07353334 = sum of:
0.07353334 = product of:
0.14706668 = sum of:
0.14706668 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14706668 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22
-
White, H.D.; McCain, W.: Bibliometrics (1989)
0.02
0.020474091 = product of:
0.040948182 = sum of:
0.040948182 = product of:
0.081896365 = sum of:
0.081896365 = weight(_text_:technology in 341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081896365 = score(doc=341,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 341, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=341)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 24(1989), S.119-186
-
White, H.D.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations : a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences (2009)
0.01
0.009048356 = product of:
0.018096711 = sum of:
0.018096711 = product of:
0.036193423 = sum of:
0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036193423 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1083-1096
-
White, H.D.; McCain, K.W.: Visualization of literatures (1997)
0.01
0.008957415 = product of:
0.01791483 = sum of:
0.01791483 = product of:
0.03582966 = sum of:
0.03582966 = weight(_text_:technology in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03582966 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.99-168
-
White, H.D.: Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis : a remapping of paradigmatic information scientists (2003)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=1459,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1459, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1459)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.423-434
-
White, H.D.: Author cocitation analysis and pearson's r (2003)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 2119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=2119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2119, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2119)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.13, S.1250-1259
-
White, H.D.: Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance theory : part 1: first examples of a synthesis (2007)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.4, S.536-559
-
White, H.D.: Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance theory : part 2: some implications for information science (2007)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=437,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 437, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=437)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.4, S.583-605
-
White, H.D.; Zuccala, A.A.: Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame (2018)
0.01
0.0063981535 = product of:
0.012796307 = sum of:
0.012796307 = product of:
0.025592614 = sum of:
0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025592614 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.12, S.1502-1512
-
White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001)
0.01
0.005118523 = product of:
0.010237046 = sum of:
0.010237046 = product of:
0.020474091 = sum of:
0.020474091 = weight(_text_:technology in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020474091 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.2, S.87-108
-
White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004)
0.01
0.005118523 = product of:
0.010237046 = sum of:
0.010237046 = product of:
0.020474091 = sum of:
0.020474091 = weight(_text_:technology in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020474091 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.111-126
-
White, H.D.: Relevance in theory (2009)
0.01
0.005118523 = product of:
0.010237046 = sum of:
0.010237046 = product of:
0.020474091 = sum of:
0.020474091 = weight(_text_:technology in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020474091 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.052224867 = queryNorm
0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Relevance is the central concept in information science because of its salience in designing and evaluating literature-based answering systems. It is salient when users seek information through human intermediaries, such as reference librarians, but becomes even more so when systems are automated and users must navigate them on their own. Designers of classic precomputer systems of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries appear to have been no less concerned with relevance than the information scientists of today. The concept has, however, proved difficult to define and operationalize. A common belief is that it is a relation between a user's request for information and the documents the system retrieves in response. Documents might be considered retrieval-worthy because they: 1) constitute evidence for or against a claim; 2) answer a question; or 3) simply match the request in topic. In practice, literature-based answering makes use of term-matching technology, and most evaluation of relevance has involved topical match as the primary criterion for acceptability. The standard table for evaluating the relation of retrieved documents to a request has only the values "relevant" and "not relevant," yet many analysts hold that relevance admits of degrees. Moreover, many analysts hold that users decide relevance on more dimensions than topical match. Who then can validly judge relevance? Is it only the person who put the request and who can evaluate a document on multiple dimensions? Or can surrogate judges perform this function on the basis of topicality? Such questions arise in a longstanding debate on whether relevance is objective or subjective. One proposal has been to reframe the debate in terms of relevance theory (imported from linguistic pragmatics), which makes relevance increase with a document's valuable cognitive effects and decrease with the effort needed to process it. This notion allows degree of topical match to contribute to relevance but allows other considerations to contribute as well. Since both cognitive effects and processing effort will differ across users, they can be taken as subjective, but users' decisions can also be objectively evaluated if the logic behind them is made explicit. Relevance seems problematical because the considerations that lead people to accept documents in literature searches, or to use them later in contexts such as citation, are seldom fully revealed. Once they are revealed, relevance may be seen as not only multidimensional and dynamic, but also understandable.
