Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.04 
    0.037424065 = product of:
  0.062373437 = sum of:
    0.037908506 = weight(_text_:g in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037908506 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.007988711 = weight(_text_:a in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007988711 = score(doc=4345,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.016476223 = product of:
      0.032952446 = sum of:
        0.032952446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032952446 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
    Type
    a
  2. Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005) 0.03 
    0.03436881 = product of:
  0.08592202 = sum of:
    0.07581701 = weight(_text_:g in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07581701 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
    0.010105007 = weight(_text_:a in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010105007 = score(doc=4654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Type
    a
  3. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.03 
    0.031567965 = product of:
  0.052613273 = sum of:
    0.031590424 = weight(_text_:g in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031590424 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.0072926614 = weight(_text_:a in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072926614 = score(doc=4200,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
    Type
    a
  4. Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003) 0.02 
    0.021774529 = product of:
  0.05443632 = sum of:
    0.044226594 = weight(_text_:g in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044226594 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
    0.010209725 = weight(_text_:a in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010209725 = score(doc=1676,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Results from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.
    Type
    a
  5. Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005) 0.02 
    0.01717365 = product of:
  0.042934123 = sum of:
    0.03361396 = weight(_text_:u in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03361396 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.009320162 = weight(_text_:a in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009320162 = score(doc=364,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 364, 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=364)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.
    Source
    Libraries and Google. Eds.: Miller, W. u. R.M. Pellen
    Type
    a
  6. Thelwall, M.; Binns, R.; Harries, G.; Page-Kennedy, T.; Price, L.; Wilkinson, D.: Custom interfaces for advanced queries in search engines (2001) 0.02 
    0.015786959 = product of:
  0.039467398 = sum of:
    0.031590424 = weight(_text_:g in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031590424 = score(doc=697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
    0.0078769745 = weight(_text_:a in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0078769745 = score(doc=697,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 697, 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=697)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Those seeking information from the Internet often start from a search engine, using either its organised directory structure or its text query facility. In response to the difficulty in identifying the most relevant pages for some information needs, many search engines offer Boolean text matching and some, including Google, AltaVista and HotBot, offer the facility to integrate additional information into a more advanced request. Amongst web users, however, it is known that the employment of complex enquiries is far from universal, with very short queries being the norm. It is demonstrated that the gap between the provision of advanced search facilities and their use can be bridged, for specific information needs, by the construction of a simple interface in the form of a website that automatically formulates the necessary requests. It is argued that this kind of resource, perhaps employing additional knowledge domain specific information, is one that could be useful for websites or portals of common interest groups. The approach is illustrated by a website that enables a user to search the individual websites of university level institutions in European Union associated countries.
    Type
    a
  7. Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: Do the Web Sites of Higher Rated Scholars Have Significantly More Online Impact? (2004) 0.02 
    0.015299073 = product of:
  0.038247682 = sum of:
    0.031590424 = weight(_text_:g in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031590424 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
    0.0066572586 = weight(_text_:a in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066572586 = score(doc=2123,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2123, 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=2123)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.
    Type
    a
  8. Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011) 0.02 
    0.015025265 = product of:
  0.03756316 = sum of:
    0.028811965 = weight(_text_:u in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028811965 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.008751193 = weight(_text_:a in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008751193 = score(doc=10,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
    Type
    a
  9. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment strength detection for the social web (2012) 0.01 
    0.014698847 = product of:
  0.036747117 = sum of:
    0.031590424 = weight(_text_:g in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031590424 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.0051566907 = weight(_text_:a in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051566907 = score(doc=4972,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4972, 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=4972)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.
    Type
    a
  10. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.010692738 = product of:
  0.026731845 = sum of:
    0.0047635464 = weight(_text_:a in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047635464 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.021968298 = product of:
      0.043936595 = sum of:
        0.043936595 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043936595 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Type
    a
  11. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.009829643 = product of:
  0.024574107 = sum of:
    0.0051566907 = weight(_text_:a in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051566907 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
    0.019417416 = product of:
      0.038834833 = sum of:
        0.038834833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038834833 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
    Type
    a
  12. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.009065702 = product of:
  0.022664253 = sum of:
    0.0061880285 = weight(_text_:a in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061880285 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.016476223 = product of:
      0.032952446 = sum of:
        0.032952446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032952446 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Type
    a
  13. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.008611491 = product of:
  0.021528726 = sum of:
    0.0050525037 = weight(_text_:a in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050525037 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
    0.016476223 = product of:
      0.032952446 = sum of:
        0.032952446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032952446 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Type
    a
  14. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.008154978 = product of:
  0.020387445 = sum of:
    0.0066572586 = weight(_text_:a in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066572586 = score(doc=178,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  15. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.0080195535 = product of:
  0.020048883 = sum of:
    0.0035726598 = weight(_text_:a in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035726598 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.016476223 = product of:
      0.032952446 = sum of:
        0.032952446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032952446 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Type
    a
  16. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.007873848 = product of:
  0.01968462 = sum of:
    0.0059544328 = weight(_text_:a in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059544328 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
    Type
    a
  17. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.007554751 = product of:
  0.018886877 = sum of:
    0.0051566907 = weight(_text_:a in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051566907 = score(doc=57,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
    Type
    a
  18. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.007176243 = product of:
  0.017940607 = sum of:
    0.00421042 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00421042 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  19. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.01 
    0.007176243 = product of:
  0.017940607 = sum of:
    0.00421042 = weight(_text_:a in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00421042 = score(doc=995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Type
    a
  20. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.0066829617 = product of:
  0.016707404 = sum of:
    0.0029772164 = weight(_text_:a in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029772164 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.013730187 = product of:
      0.027460374 = sum of:
        0.027460374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027460374 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 116
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 116
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications