Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.011583204 = product of:
  0.03185381 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=1103,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
    0.00924237 = product of:
      0.03696948 = sum of:
        0.03696948 = weight(_text_:o in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03696948 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.1995-2012

Type

a

0.008686574 = product of:
  0.02388808 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=3364,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
    0.00924237 = product of:
      0.03696948 = sum of:
        0.03696948 = weight(_text_:o in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03696948 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine participation in online social platforms consisting of information exchange, social network interactions, and political deliberation. Despite the proven benefits of online participation, the majority of internet users read social media data but do not directly contribute, a phenomenon called lurking. Design/methodology/approach A survey was administered electronically to 507 participants and consisted of ten sections in a questionnaire to gather data on the relationship between online participation and the following variables: anonymity, social value orientation, motivations, and participation in offline activities, as well as the internet's political influence and personality traits. Findings Findings show that users with high levels of participation also identify themselves, report higher levels of extroversion, openness, and activity outside the internet, the motivations being an intermediary variable in the relationship between the variables value. Originality/value The study shows that participation in online social platforms is not only related to personality traits, but they are impacted by the nature of the motivations that drive them to participate in the particular social platform, as well as by the interest toward the specific topic, or the type or nature of the social group with whom they are communicating.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 68(2016) no.6, S.793-818

Type

a

0.007112879 = product of:
  0.026080554 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=253,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

In this study, we consider the structure and linking strategy of Hebrew websites of several nonprofit organizations. Because nonprofit organizations differ from commercial, educational, or governmental sectors, it is important to understand the ways they utilize the web. To the best of our knowledge, the linking structure of nonprofit organizations has not been previously studied. We surveyed websites of 54 nonprofit organizations in Israel; most of these sites have at least 100 volunteers. We compared their orientation and contents and we built their linking map. We divided the organizations into four main groups: economic aid and citizen rights organizations, health aid organizations, organizations supporting families and individuals with special needs, and organizations for women and children. We found that the number of links inside the special needs group is much higher than in the other groups. We tried to explain this behavior by considering the data obtained from the site-linking graph. The value of our results is in defining and testing a method to investigate a group of nonprofit organizations, using a case study of Israeli organizations.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.6, S.1142-1167

Type

a

0.006768254 = product of:
  0.02481693 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=2703,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

We describe the results of an experiment designed to study user preferences for different orderings of search results from three major search engines. In the experiment, 65 users were asked to choose the best ordering from two different orderings of the same set of search results: Each pair consisted of the search engine's original top-10 ordering and a synthetic ordering created from the same top-10 results retrieved by the search engine. This process was repeated for 12 queries and nine different synthetic orderings. The results show that there is a slight overall preference for the search engines' original orderings, but the preference is rarely significant. Users' choice of the best result from each of the different orderings indicates that placement on the page (i.e., whether the result appears near the top) is the most important factor used in determining the quality of the result, not the actual content displayed in the top-10 snippets. In addition to the placement bias, we detected a small bias due to the reputation of the sites appearing in the search results.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.1, S.135-149

Type

a

0.0066959728 = product of:
  0.0245519 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=470,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=470,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the similarities and differences between rankings of search results by users and search engines. Sixty-seven students took part in a 3-week-long experiment, during which they were asked to identify and rank the top 10 documents from the set of URLs that were retrieved by three major search engines (Google, MSN Search, and Yahoo!) for 12 selected queries. The URLs and accompanying snippets were displayed in random order, without disclosing which search engine(s) retrieved any specific URL for the query. We computed the similarity of the rankings of the users and search engines using four nonparametric correlation measures in [0,1] that complement each other. The findings show that the similarities between the users' choices and the rankings of the search engines are low. We examined the effects of the presentation order of the results, and of the thinking styles of the participants. Presentation order influences the rankings, but overall the results indicate that there is no "average user," and even if the users have the same basic knowledge of a topic, they evaluate information in their own context, which is influenced by cognitive, affective, and physical factors. This is the first large-scale experiment in which users were asked to rank the results of identical queries. The analysis of the experimental results demonstrates the potential for personalized search.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1254-1266

Type

a

0.0044841985 = product of:
  0.01644206 = sum of:
    0.009064952 = product of:
      0.018129904 = sum of:
        0.018129904 = weight(_text_:h in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018129904 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
    0.0034720355 = weight(_text_:s in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034720355 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Source

Scientometrics. 102(2015) no.3, S.2247-2253

Type

a

0.0039373874 = product of:
  0.014437087 = sum of:
    0.005844579 = weight(_text_:a in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005844579 = score(doc=1634,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.007203694 = product of:
      0.014407388 = sum of:
        0.014407388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014407388 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.494-518

Type

a

0.0034705228 = product of:
  0.01272525 = sum of:
    0.0041327416 = weight(_text_:a in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041327416 = score(doc=3071,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
    0.007203694 = product of:
      0.014407388 = sum of:
        0.014407388 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014407388 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Purpose - One of the under-explored aspects in the process of user information seeking behaviour is influence of time on relevance evaluation. It has been shown in previous studies that individual users might change their assessment of search results over time. It is also known that aggregated judgements of multiple individual users can lead to correct and reliable decisions; this phenomenon is known as the "wisdom of crowds". The purpose of this paper is to examine whether aggregated judgements will be more stable and thus more reliable over time than individual user judgements. Design/methodology/approach - In this study two simple measures are proposed to calculate the aggregated judgements of search results and compare their reliability and stability to individual user judgements. In addition, the aggregated "wisdom of crowds" judgements were used as a means to compare the differences between human assessments of search results and search engine's rankings. A large-scale user study was conducted with 87 participants who evaluated two different queries and four diverse result sets twice, with an interval of two months. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: relevance on a four-point scale, and ranking on a ten-point scale without ties. Findings - It was found that aggregated judgements are much more stable than individual user judgements, yet they are quite different from search engine rankings. Practical implications - The proposed "wisdom of crowds"-based approach provides a reliable reference point for the evaluation of search engines. This is also important for exploring the need of personalisation and adapting search engine's ranking over time to changes in users preferences. Originality/value - This is a first study that applies the notion of "wisdom of crowds" to examine an under-explored in the literature phenomenon of "change in time" in user evaluation of relevance.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 68(2016) no.4, S.407-427

Type

a

0.003329531 = product of:
  0.01220828 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1258,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1018-1027

Type

a

0.0033145915 = product of:
  0.012153502 = sum of:
    0.004532476 = product of:
      0.009064952 = sum of:
        0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009064952 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=1863,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=1863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1136-1149

Type

a

0.002146068 = product of:
  0.011803374 = sum of:
    0.0062481174 = weight(_text_:a in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062481174 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
    0.0055552567 = weight(_text_:s in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055552567 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of information science. 31(2005) no.4, S.297-307

Type

a

0.0019624678 = product of:
  0.010793572 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 7125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=7125,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 7125, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7125)
    0.0041664424 = weight(_text_:s in 7125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041664424 = score(doc=7125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 7125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7125)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Pages

S.651-660

Type

a

0.0018963597 = product of:
  0.010429978 = sum of:
    0.0076523502 = weight(_text_:a in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076523502 = score(doc=305,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

This study introduces methods for evaluating search engine performance over a time period. Several measures are defined, which as a whole describe search engine functionality over time. The necessary setup for such studies is described, and the use of these measures is illustrated through a specific example. The set of measures introduced here may serve as a guideline for the search engines for testing and improving their functionality. We recommend setting up a standard suite of measures for evaluating search engine performance.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.308-319

Type

a

0.0018778095 = product of:
  0.010327952 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 4653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=4653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4653)
    0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 4653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048608496 = score(doc=4653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 4653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4653)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of information science. 31(2005) no.1, S.13-

Type

a

0.0015913701 = product of:
  0.008752535 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 3822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=3822,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 3822, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3822)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 3822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=3822,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3822, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3822)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Informetrics is a subfield of information science and it encompasses bibliometrics, scientometrics, cybermetrics, and webometrics. This encyclopedia entry provides an overview of informetrics and its subfields. In general, informetrics deals with quantitative aspects of information: its production, dissemination, evaluation, and use. Bibliometrics and scientometrics study scientific literature: papers, journals, patents, and citations; while in webometric studies the sources studied are Web pages and Web sites, and citations are replaced by hypertext links. The entry introduces major topics in informetrics: citation analysis and citation related studies, the journal impact factor, the recently defined h-index, citation databases, co-citation analysis, open access publications and its implications, informetric laws, techniques for mapping and visualization of informetric phenomena, the emerging subfields of webometrics, cybermetrics and link analysis, and research evaluation.

Type

a

0.0015532422 = product of:
  0.008542832 = sum of:
    0.006112407 = weight(_text_:a in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006112407 = score(doc=2886,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The present paper analyzes the changes that occurred to a set of Web pages related to "informetrics" over a period of 5 years between June 1998 and June 2003. Four times during this time span, in 1998,1999, 2002, and 2003, we monitored previously located pages and searched for new ones related to the topic. Thus, we were able to study the growth of the topic, white analyzing the rates of change and disappearance. The results indicate that modification, disappearance, and resurfacing cannot be ignored when studying the structure and development of the Web.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.980-990

Type

a

0.0015058789 = product of:
  0.008282334 = sum of:
    0.0061991126 = weight(_text_:a in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061991126 = score(doc=1058,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The Web is an enormous set of documents connected through hypertext links created by authors of Web pages. These links have been studied quantitatively, but little has been done so far in order to understand why these links are created. As a first step towards a better understanding, we propose a classification of link types in academic environments on the Web. The classification is multi-faceted and involves different aspects of the source and the target page, the link area and the relationship between the source and the target. Such classification provides an insight into the diverse uses of hypertext links on the Web, and has implications for browsing and ranking in IR systems by differentiating between different types of links. As a case study we classified a sample of links between sites of Israeli academic institutions.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.4, S.973-986

Type

a

0.0014359142 = product of:
  0.007897528 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=390,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Examines and compares the use of the Internet among various sectors of the faculty at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in order to verify the influence of a number of parameters on this use. Questionnaires were sent to faculty members in all departments and professional schools of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a total population of 918 for both the pilot project and the main study. Results indicated that Internet use is consistently higher among faculty members in the sciences and agriculture than among those in the humanities or social sciences. Makes suggestions for training the level of Internet use among the various disciplines of the faculty

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.6, S.508-518

Type

a

0.0013806598 = product of:
  0.0075936285 = sum of:
    0.0058576106 = weight(_text_:a in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058576106 = score(doc=3089,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The universe of information has been enriched by the creation of the World Wide Web, which has become an indispensible source for research. Since this source is growing at an enormous speed, an in-depth look of its performance to create a method for its evaluation has become necessary; however, growth is not the only process that influences the evolution of the Web. During their lifetime, Web pages may change their content and links to/from other Web pages, be duplicated or moved to a different URL, be removed from the Web either temporarily or permanently, and be temporarily inaccessible due to server and/or communication failures. To obtain a better understanding of these processes, we developed a method for tracking topics on the Web for long periods of time, without the need to employ a crawler and relying only on publicly available resources. The multiple data-collection methods used allow us to discover new pages related to the topic, to identify changes to existing pages, and to detect previously existing pages that have been removed or whose content is not relevant anymore to the specified topic. The method is demonstrated through monitoring Web pages that contain the term informetrics for a period of 8 years. The data-collection method also allowed us to analyze the dynamic changes in search engine coverage, illustrated here on Google - the search engine used for the longest period of time for data collection in this project.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.9, S.1730-1740

Type

a

0.0013806598 = product of:
  0.0075936285 = sum of:
    0.0058576106 = weight(_text_:a in 3439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058576106 = score(doc=3439,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3439, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3439)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3439)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Domain experts are skilled in buliding a narrow ontology that reflects their subfield of expertise based on their work experience and personal beliefs. We call this type of ontology a single-viewpoint ontology. There can be a variety of such single viewpoint ontologies that represent a wide spectrum of subfields and expert opinions on the domain. However, to have a complete formal vocabulary for the domain they need to be linked and unified into a multiviewpoint model while having the subjective viewpoint statements marked and distinguished from the objectively true statements. In this study, we propose and implement a two-phase methodology for multiviewpoint ontology construction by nonexpert users. The proposed methodology was implemented for the domain of the effect of diet on health. A large-scale crowdsourcing experiment was conducted with about 750 ontological statements to determine whether each of these statements is objectively true, viewpoint, or erroneous. Typically, in crowdsourcing experiments the workers are asked for their personal opinions on the given subject. However, in our case their ability to objectively assess others' opinions was examined as well. Our results show substantially higher accuracy in classification for the objective assessment approach compared to the results based on personal opinions.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.681-694

Type

a