Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

0.09600839 = product of:
  0.16001397 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = 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)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.11639772 = sum of:
      0.048857726 = weight(_text_:technology in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048857726 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.06754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06754 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

0.09211161 = product of:
  0.15351935 = sum of:
    0.13281834 = weight(_text_:section in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13281834 = score(doc=194,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.5049099 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 194, 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=194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In the first part of this article the author defines the n-overlap vector whose coordinates consist of the fraction of the objects (e.g., books, N-grams, etc.) that belong to 1, 2, , n sets (more generally: families) (e.g., libraries, databases, etc.). With the aid of the Lorenz concentration theory, a theory of n-overlap similarity is conceived together with corresponding measures, such as the generalized Jaccard index (generalizing the well-known Jaccard index in case n 5 2). Next, the distributional form of the n-overlap vector is determined assuming certain distributions of the object's and of the set (family) sizes. In this section the decreasing power law and decreasing exponential distribution is explained for the n-overlap vector. Both item (token) n-overlap and source (type) n-overlap are studied. The n-overlap properties of objects indexed by a hierarchical system (e.g., books indexed by numbers from a UDC or Dewey system or by N-grams) are presented in the final section. The author shows how the results given in the previous section can be applied as well as how the Lorenz order of the n-overlap vector is respected by an increase or a decrease of the level of refinement in the hierarchical system (e.g., the value N in N-grams).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1165-1177

0.04899249 = product of:
  0.08165415 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
    0.029314637 = product of:
      0.058629274 = sum of:
        0.058629274 = weight(_text_:technology in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058629274 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.39488205 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.871

0.04536351 = product of:
  0.07560585 = sum of:
    0.04170311 = weight(_text_:on in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04170311 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.38036036 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=1881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1881, 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=1881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1304-1312

0.042023644 = product of:
  0.07003941 = sum of:
    0.036917817 = weight(_text_:on in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036917817 = score(doc=3598,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A graph in van Eck and Waltman [JASIST, 60(8), 2009, p. 1644], representing the relation between the association strength and the cosine, is partially explained as a sheaf of parabolas, each parabola being the functional relation between these similarity measures on the trajectories x*y=a, a constant. Based on earlier obtained relations between cosine and other similarity measures (e.g., Jaccard index), we can prove new relations between the association strength and these other measures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1502-1504

0.03677069 = product of:
  0.061284482 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=450,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 450, 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=450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article studies concentration aspects of bibliographies. More, in particular, we study the impact of incompleteness of such a bibliography on its concentration values (i.e., its degree of inequality of production of its sources). Incompleteness is modeled by sampling in the complete bibliography. The model is general enough to comprise truncation of a bibliography as well as a systematic sample on sources or items. In all cases we prove that the sampled bibliography (or incomplete one) has a higher concentration value than the complete one. These models, hence, shed some light on the measurement of production inequality in incomplete bibliographies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.271-281

0.034087777 = product of:
  0.056812957 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=5685,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.5, S.371-377

0.034087777 = product of:
  0.056812957 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1276-1281

0.034087777 = product of:
  0.056812957 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=3336,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.370-373

0.033214055 = product of:
  0.055356756 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=463,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 463, 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=463)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 463, 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=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2118-2121

0.033214055 = product of:
  0.055356756 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 526, 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=526)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 526, 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=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

We present a model that describes which fraction of the literature on a certain topic we will find when we use n (n = 1, 2, .) databases. It is a generalization of the theory of discovering usability problems. We prove that, in all practical cases, this fraction is a concave function of n, the number of used databases, thereby explaining some graphs that exist in the literature. We also study limiting features of this fraction for n very high and we characterize the case that we find all literature on a certain topic for n high enough.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.126-131

0.032332122 = product of:
  0.053886868 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
    0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638987 = score(doc=2558,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
    0.020261997 = product of:
      0.040523995 = sum of:
        0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040523995 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The paper shows that the present evaluation methods in information retrieval (basically recall R and precision P and in some cases fallout F ) lack universal comparability in the sense that their values depend on the generality of the IR problem. A solution is given by using all "parts" of the database, including the non-relevant documents and also the not-retrieved documents. It turns out that the solution is given by introducing the measure M being the fraction of the not-retrieved documents that are relevant (hence the "miss" measure). We prove that - independent of the IR problem or of the IR action - the quadruple (P,R,F,M) belongs to a universal IR surface, being the same for all IR-activities. This universality is then exploited by defining a new measure for evaluation in IR allowing for unbiased comparisons of all IR results. We also show that only using one, two or even three measures from the set {P,R,F,M} necessary leads to evaluation measures that are non-universal and hence not capable of comparing different IR situations.

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.1, S.21-30

0.030669982 = product of:
  0.051116634 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=4994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4994, 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=4994)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.02072858 = product of:
      0.04145716 = sum of:
        0.04145716 = weight(_text_:technology in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04145716 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Footnote

Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

0.028578952 = product of:
  0.047631584 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 50, 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=50)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 50, 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=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785

0.028578952 = product of:
  0.047631584 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1965, 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=1965)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1965, 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=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Fundamental mathematical properties of rhythm sequences are studied. In particular, a set of three axioms for valid rhythm indicators is proposed, and it is shown that the R-indicator satisfies only two out of three but that the R-indicator satisfies all three. This fills a critical, logical gap in the study of these indicator sequences. Matrices leading to a constant R-sequence are called baseline matrices. They are characterized as matrices with constant w-year diachronous impact factors. The relation with classical impact factors is clarified. Using regression analysis matrices with a rhythm sequence that is on average equal to 1 (smaller than 1, larger than 1) are characterized.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1469-1478

0.028578952 = product of:
  0.047631584 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3124, 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=3124)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3124, 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=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2142-2144

0.028578952 = product of:
  0.047631584 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 243, 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=243)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 243, 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=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.1048-1053

0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2708,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2708, 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=2708)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2708)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=2708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The well-known similarity measures Jaccard, Salton's cosine, Dice, and several related overlap measures for vectors are compared. While general relations are not possible to prove, we study these measures on the trajectories of the form [X]=a[Y], where a > 0 is a constant and [·] denotes the Euclidean norm of a vector. In this case, direct functional relations between these measures are proved. For Jaccard, we prove that it is a convexly increasing function of Salton's cosine measure, but always smaller than or equal to the latter, hereby explaining a curve, experimentally found by Leydesdorff. All the other measures have a linear relation with Salton's cosine, reducing even to equality, in case a = 1. Hence, for equally normed vectors (e.g., for normalized vectors) we, essentially, only have Jaccard's measure and Salton's cosine measure since all the other measures are equal to the latter.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.232-239

0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2803,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2803, 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=2803)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=2803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient and Salton's cosine measure is revealed based on the different possible values of the division of the L1-norm and the L2-norm of a vector. These different values yield a sheaf of increasingly straight lines which together form a cloud of points, being the investigated relation. The theoretical results are tested against the author co-citation relations among 24 informetricians for whom two matrices can be constructed, based on co-citations: the asymmetric occurrence matrix and the symmetric co-citation matrix. Both examples completely confirm the theoretical results. The results enable us to specify an algorithm that provides a threshold value for the cosine above which none of the corresponding Pearson correlations would be negative. Using this threshold value can be expected to optimize the visualization of the vector space.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.1027-1036

0.027859053 = product of:
  0.046431754 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = 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)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.020261997 = product of:
      0.040523995 = sum of:
        0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040523995 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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