Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025374835 = product of:
  0.06343709 = sum of:
    0.04170945 = weight(_text_:u in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04170945 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.30697915 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
    0.02172764 = product of:
      0.04345528 = sum of:
        0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345528 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.

0.015731899 = product of:
  0.07865949 = sum of:
    0.07865949 = sum of:
      0.04244675 = weight(_text_:h in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04244675 = score(doc=1237,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.41174316 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036212735 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

Object

h-index

0.0048520677 = product of:
  0.024260338 = sum of:
    0.024260338 = product of:
      0.048520677 = sum of:
        0.048520677 = weight(_text_:h in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048520677 = score(doc=460,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For measuring multilevel impact, we introduce the distributive h-indices, which balance two important components (breadth and strength) of multilevel impact at various citing levels. After exploring the theoretical properties of these indices, we studied two cases: 57 library and information science (LIS) journals and social science research in 38 European countries/territories. Results reveal that there are approximate power-law relations between distributive h-indices and some underlying citation indicators, such as total citations, total citing entities, and the h-index. Distributive h-indices provide comprehensive measures for multilevel impact, and lead to a potential tool for citation analysis, particularly at aggregative levels.

Object

h-index

0.0041589155 = product of:
  0.020794576 = sum of:
    0.020794576 = product of:
      0.041589152 = sum of:
        0.041589152 = weight(_text_:h in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041589152 = score(doc=1256,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Most measures of networks are based on the nodes, although links are also elementary units in networks and represent interesting social or physical connections. In this work we suggest an option for exploring networks, called the h-strength, with explicit focus on links and their strengths. The h-strength and its extensions can naturally simplify a complex network to a small and concise subnetwork (h-subnet) but retains the most important links with its core structure. Its applications in 2 typical information networks, the paper cocitation network of a topic (the h-index) and 5 scientific collaboration networks in the field of "water resources," suggest that h-strength and its extensions could be a useful choice for abstracting, simplifying, and visualizing a complex network. Moreover, we observe that the 2 informetric models, the Glänzel-Schubert model and the Hirsch model, roughly hold in the context of the h-strength for the collaboration networks.

0.003921063 = product of:
  0.019605314 = sum of:
    0.019605314 = product of:
      0.03921063 = sum of:
        0.03921063 = weight(_text_:h in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03921063 = score(doc=4142,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.38035205 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Among existing theoretical models for the h-index, Hirsch's original approach, the Egghe-Rousseau model, and the Glänzel-Schubert model are the three main representatives. Assuming a power-law relation or Heaps' law between publications and citations a unified theoretical explanation for these three models is provided. It is shown that on the level of universities, the Glänzel-Schubert model fits best.

Object

h-index

0.0036212734 = product of:
  0.018106367 = sum of:
    0.018106367 = product of:
      0.036212735 = sum of:
        0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036212735 = score(doc=2160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)