Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023902256 = product of:
  0.047804512 = sum of:
    0.047804512 = product of:
      0.095609024 = sum of:
        0.095609024 = weight(_text_:2007 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095609024 = score(doc=326,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.47319412 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.971-986

Year

2007

0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

0.019918546 = product of:
  0.039837092 = sum of:
    0.039837092 = product of:
      0.079674184 = sum of:
        0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079674184 = score(doc=139,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.322-334

Year

2007

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=2694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research evaluation is increasingly popular and important among research funding bodies and science policy makers. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate the standing of individual scientists, institutions, journals, or countries. A simple and popular one among the indicators is the h-index, the Hirsch index (Hirsch 2005), which is an indicator for lifetime achievement of a scholar. Several other indicators have been proposed to complement or balance the h-index. However, these indicators have no conception of aging. The AR-index (Jin et al. 2007) incorporates aging but divides the received citation counts by the raw age of the publication. Consequently, the decay of a publication is very steep and insensitive to disciplinary differences. In addition, we believe that a publication becomes outdated only when it is no longer cited, not because of its age. Finally, all indicators treat citations as equally material when one might reasonably think that a citation from a heavily cited publication should weigh more than a citation froma non-cited or little-cited publication.We propose a new indicator, the Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index, which devalues old citations in a smooth way. It rewards an author for receiving new citations even if the publication is old. Further, it allows weighting of the citations by the citation weight of the citing publication. DCI can be used to calculate research performance on the basis of the h-core of a scholar or any other publication data.

0.009095631 = product of:
  0.018191261 = sum of:
    0.018191261 = product of:
      0.036382522 = sum of:
        0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036382522 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.009095631 = product of:
  0.018191261 = sum of:
    0.018191261 = product of:
      0.036382522 = sum of:
        0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036382522 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06