Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0050479556 = product of:
  0.020191822 = sum of:
    0.020191822 = weight(_text_:information in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020191822 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Editorial zu einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"

0.0042066295 = product of:
  0.016826518 = sum of:
    0.016826518 = weight(_text_:information in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016826518 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1695)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"

0.0042066295 = product of:
  0.016826518 = sum of:
    0.016826518 = weight(_text_:information in 2992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016826518 = score(doc=2992,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2992, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2992)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.003606434 = product of:
  0.014425736 = sum of:
    0.014425736 = weight(_text_:information in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014425736 = score(doc=2302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der Studie sind 3.889 Datensätze analysiert worden, die im Zeitraum 1976-2004 in der Datenbank Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) im Forschungsbereich der Informetrie nachgewiesen sind und das Wachstum auf diesem Gebiet belegen. Die Studie zeigt anhand einer Bradford-Verteilung (power law) die Kernzeitschriften in diesem Feld und bestätigt auf der Basis dieses LISA-Datensatzes, dass die Gründung einer neuen Zeitschrift, "Journals of Informetrics" (JoI), 2007 etwa zur rechten Zeit erfolgte. Im Verhältnis dazu wird die Entwicklung der Zeitschrift Scientometrics betrachtet und auch die der "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) bzw. "Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis" (IWP).

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.6/7, S.353-360

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Wa(h)re Information: 29. Österreichischer Bibliothekartag Bregenz, 19.-23.9.2006. Hrsg.: Harald Weigel

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=1909,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In diesem Artikel wird ein Eyetracking-Experiment beschrieben, bei dem untersucht wurde, wann und auf Basis welcher Informationen Relevanzentscheidungen bei der themenbezogenen Dokumentenbewertung fallen und welche Faktoren auf die Relevanzentscheidung einwirken. Nach einer kurzen Einführung werden relevante Studien aufgeführt, in denen Eyetracking als Untersuchungsmethode für Interaktionsverhalten mit Ergebnislisten (Information Seeking Behavior) verwendet wurde. Nutzerverhalten wird hierbei vor allem durch unterschiedliche Aufgaben-Typen, dargestellte Informationen und durch das Ranking eines Ergebnisses beeinflusst. Durch EyetrackingUntersuchungen lassen sich Nutzer außerdem in verschiedene Klassen von Bewertungs- und Lesetypen einordnen. Diese Informationen können als implizites Feedback genutzt werden, um so die Suche zu personalisieren und um die Relevanz von Suchergebnissen ohne aktives Zutun des Users zu erhöhen. In einem explorativen Eyetracking-Experiment mit 12 Studenten der Hochschule Darmstadt werden anhand der Länge der Gesamtbewertung, Anzahl der Fixationen, Anzahl der besuchten Metadatenelemente und Länge des Scanpfades zwei typische Bewertungstypen identifiziert. Das Metadatenfeld Abstract wird im Experiment zuverlässig als wichtigste Dokumenteigenschaft für die Zuordnung von Relevanz ermittelt.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.145-156

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information Gateway

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 4663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=4663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4663)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=2627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=3189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.1, S.41-48

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0020608194 = product of:
  0.008243278 = sum of:
    0.008243278 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008243278 = score(doc=3023,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Neben den klassischen Informationsanbietern Bibliothek, Fachinformation und den Verlagen sind Internetsuchmaschinen inzwischen fester Bestandteil bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Information. Scirus (Elsevier, 2004) und Google Scholar sind zwei Beispiele für Suchdienste kommerzieller Suchmaschinen-Unternehmen, die eine Einschränkung auf den wissenschaftlichen Dokumentenraum anstreben und nennenswerte Dokumentzahlen in allen Disziplinen generieren. Der Vergleich der Treffermengen für beliebige Suchthemen zeigt, dass die Wahl des Suchsystems, des Dokumentenpools und der Dokumenttypen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Relevanz und damit letztlich auch die Akzeptanz des Suchergebnisses hat. Tabelle 1 verdeutlicht die Mengenunterschiede am Beispiel der Trefferergebnisse für die Suchbegriffe "search engines" bzw. "Suchmaschinen" in der allgemeinen Internetsuchmaschine Google, der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine Google Scholar (GS) und der größten fachübergreifenden bibliographischen Literaturdatenbank Web of Science (WoS). Der Anteil der Dokumente, die in diesem Fall eindeutig der Wissenschaft zuzuordnen sind (siehe GS und insbesondere WoS in Tabelle 1), liegt gegenüber der allgemeinen Websuche lediglich im Promille-Bereich. Dieses Beispiel veranschaulicht, dass es ausgesprochen problematisch sein kann, fachwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen ausschließlich mit Internetsuchmaschinen zu recherchieren. Der Anteil der fachwissenschaftlich relevanten Dokumente in diesem Trefferpool ist i. d. R. sehr gering. Damit sinkt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, wissenschaftlich relevantes (z. B. einen Zeitschriftenaufsatz) auf den ersten Trefferseiten zu finden, deutlich ab.
Die drei oben genannten Suchsysteme (Google, GS und WoS) unterscheiden sich in mehrerlei Hinsicht fundamental und eignen sich daher gut, um in die Grundthematik dieses Artikels einzuleiten. Die obigen Suchsysteme erschließen zunächst unterschiedliche Suchräume, und dies auf sehr spezifische Weise. Während Google frei zugängliche und über Hyperlink adressierbare Dokumente im Internet erfasst, gehen die beiden akademischen Suchsysteme deutlich selektiver bei der Inhaltserschließung vor. Google Scholar erfasst neben frei zugänglichen elektronischen Publikationstypen im Internet hauptsächlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente, die direkt von den akademischen Verlagen bezogen werden. Das WoS, das auf den unterschiedlichen bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindizes des ehemaligen "Institute for Scientific Information" (ISI) basiert, selektiert gegenüber den rein automatischen brute-force-Ansätzen der Internetsuchmaschine über einen qualitativen Ansatz. In den Datenbanken des WoS werden ausschließlich internationale Fachzeitschriften erfasst, die ein kontrolliertes Peer-Review durchlaufen. Insgesamt werden ca. 12.000 Zeitschriften ausgewertet und über die Datenbank verfügbar gemacht. Wie bereits erwähnt, spielt neben der Abgrenzung der Suchräume und Dokumenttypen die Zugänglichkeit und Relevanz der Dokumente eine entscheidende Bedeutung für den Benutzer. Die neueren technologischen Entwicklungen des Web Information Retrieval (IR), wie sie Google oder GS implementieren, werten insbesondere frei zugängliche Dokumente mit ihrer gesamten Text- und Linkinformation automatisch aus. Diese Verfahren sind vor allem deshalb erfolgreich, weil sie Ergebnislisten nach Relevanz gerankt darstellen, einfach und schnell zu recherchieren sind und direkt auf die Volltexte verweisen. Die qualitativen Verfahren der traditionellen Informationsanbieter (z. B. WoS) hingegen zeigen genau bei diesen Punkten (Ranking, Einfachheit und Volltextzugriff) Schwächen, überzeugen aber vor allem durch ihre Stringenz, in diesem Fall die selektive Aufnahme von qualitätsgeprüften Dokumenten in das System und die inhaltliche Erschließung der Dokumente (siehe dazu Mayr und Petras, 2008).

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.3, S.133-140

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.1, S.3-10

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper is about a better understanding of the structure and dynamics of science and the usage of these insights for compensating the typical problems that arises in metadata-driven Digital Libraries. Three science model driven retrieval services are presented: co-word analysis based query expansion, re-ranking via Bradfordizing and author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments from which two important implications emerge: (1) precision values of the retrieval services are the same or better than the tf-idf retrieval baseline and (2) each service retrieved a disjoint set of documents. The different services each favor quite other - but still relevant - documents than pure term-frequency based rankings. The proposed models and derived retrieval services therefore open up new viewpoints on the scientific knowledge space and provide an alternative framework to structure scholarly information systems.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=2580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

0.0011898145 = product of:
  0.004759258 = sum of:
    0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004759258 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.