Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05499648 = product of:
  0.10999296 = sum of:
    0.10999296 = sum of:
      0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.079674184 = score(doc=586,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = 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)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644

Year

2007

0.023902256 = product of:
  0.047804512 = sum of:
    0.047804512 = product of:
      0.095609024 = sum of:
        0.095609024 = weight(_text_:2007 in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095609024 = score(doc=137,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.47319412 = fieldWeight in 137, 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=137)
      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.379-390

Year

2007

0.019918546 = product of:
  0.039837092 = sum of:
    0.039837092 = product of:
      0.079674184 = sum of:
        0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079674184 = score(doc=337,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
      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.1055-1065

Year

2007

0.015934838 = product of:
  0.031869676 = sum of:
    0.031869676 = product of:
      0.06373935 = sum of:
        0.06373935 = weight(_text_:2007 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06373935 = score(doc=73,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.31546274 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.200-211

Year

2007

0.015934838 = product of:
  0.031869676 = sum of:
    0.031869676 = product of:
      0.06373935 = sum of:
        0.06373935 = weight(_text_:2007 in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06373935 = score(doc=838,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.31546274 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.4, S.558-589

Year

2007

0.015117113 = product of:
  0.030234225 = sum of:
    0.030234225 = product of:
      0.06046845 = sum of:
        0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06046845 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social network sites like MySpace are increasingly important environments for expressing and maintaining interpersonal connections, but does online communication exacerbate or ameliorate the known tendency for offline friendships to form between similar people (homophily)? This article reports an exploratory study of the similarity between the reported attributes of pairs of active MySpace Friends based upon a systematic sample of 2,567 members joining on June 18, 2007 and Friends who commented on their profile. The results showed no evidence of gender homophily but significant evidence of homophily for ethnicity, religion, age, country, marital status, attitude towards children, sexual orientation, and reason for joining MySpace. There were also some imbalances: women and the young were disproportionately commenters, and commenters tended to have more Friends than commentees. Overall, it seems that although traditional sources of homophily are thriving in MySpace networks of active public connections, gender homophily has completely disappeared. Finally, the method used has wide potential for investigating and partially tracking homophily in society, providing early warning of socially divisive trends.

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=1883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 1883, 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=1883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2007, the social networking Web site MySpace apparently overthrew Google as the most visited Web site for U.S. Web users. If this heralds a new era of widespread online social networking, then it is important to investigate user behaviour and attributes. Although there has been some research into social networking already, basic demographic data is essential to set previous results in a wider context and to give insights to researchers, marketers and developers. In this article, the demographics of MySpace members are explored through data extracted from two samples of 15,043 and 7,627 member profiles. The median declared age of users was surprisingly high at 21, with a small majority of females. The analysis confirmed some previously reported findings and conjectures about social networking, for example, that female members tend to be more interested in friendship and males more interested in dating. In addition, there was some evidence of three different friending dynamics, oriented towards close friends, acquaintances, or strangers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, female and younger members had more friends than others, and females were more likely to maintain private profiles, but both males and females seemed to prefer female friends, with this tendency more marked in females for their closest friend. The typical MySpace user is apparently female, 21, single, with a public profile, interested in online friendship and logging on weekly to engage with a mixed list of mainly female friends who are predominantly acquaintances.

0.012127508 = product of:
  0.024255017 = sum of:
    0.024255017 = product of:
      0.048510034 = sum of:
        0.048510034 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048510034 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.010719304 = product of:
  0.021438608 = sum of:
    0.021438608 = product of:
      0.042877216 = sum of:
        0.042877216 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042877216 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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