Search (511 results, page 1 of 26)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.07 
    0.071107075 = product of:
  0.14221415 = sum of:
    0.14221415 = sum of:
      0.099767864 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099767864 = score(doc=4309,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.49377728 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.06 
    0.058798738 = product of:
  0.117597476 = sum of:
    0.117597476 = sum of:
      0.0872787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0872787 = score(doc=4540,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.43196514 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:29:22
  3. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.06 
    0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  4. Badia, A.: Data, information, knowledge : an information science analysis (2014) 0.06 
    0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.
    Date
    16. 6.2014 19:22:57
  5. Viti, E.: My first ten years : nuovo soggettario growing, development and integration with other knowledge organization systems (2017) 0.05 
    0.050790764 = product of:
  0.10158153 = sum of:
    0.10158153 = sum of:
      0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071262754 = score(doc=4143,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Nuovo Soggettario is a subject indexing system edited by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. It was presented to librarians from across Italy on 8 February 2007 in Florence as a new edition of the Soggettario (1956), and it has become the official Italian subject indexing tool. This system is made up of two individual and interactive components: the general thesaurus, accessible on the web since 2007 and the rules of a conventional syntax for the construction of subject strings. The Nuovo soggettario thesaurus has grown significantly in terms of terminology and connections with other knowledge organization tools (e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, resources of archives and museums, and other information data sets), offering the users the possibility to browse through documents, books, objects, photographs, etc. The conversion of the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus into formats suitable for the semantic web and linked data world improves its function as an interlinking hub for direct searching and for organizing content by different professional communities. Thanks to structured data and the SKOS format, the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus is published on the Data Hub platform, thus giving broad visibility to the BNCF and its precious patrimony.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.
  6. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.05 
    0.04842549 = product of:
  0.09685098 = sum of:
    0.09685098 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036382522 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  7. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.04 
    0.044427264 = product of:
  0.08885453 = sum of:
    0.08885453 = product of:
      0.35541812 = sum of:
        0.35541812 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35541812 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  8. Euzenat, J.; Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching (2010) 0.04 
    0.04063261 = product of:
  0.08126522 = sum of:
    0.08126522 = sum of:
      0.057010204 = weight(_text_:2007 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057010204 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.28215843 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.024255017 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024255017 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Classification
    TK5105.88815 .E99 2007
    Date
    20. 6.2012 19:08:22
    LCC
    TK5105.88815 .E99 2007
  9. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:20:56
  10. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
  11. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: User-generated genre tags through the lens of genre theories (2014) 0.03 
    0.03228366 = product of:
  0.06456732 = sum of:
    0.06456732 = sum of:
      0.0403123 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0403123 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19951613 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.024255017 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024255017 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  12. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.03 
    0.026656358 = product of:
  0.053312715 = sum of:
    0.053312715 = product of:
      0.21325086 = sum of:
        0.21325086 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21325086 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  13. Campanario, J.M.: Distribution of ranks of articles and citations in journals (2010) 0.03 
    0.025195187 = product of:
  0.050390374 = sum of:
    0.050390374 = product of:
      0.10078075 = sum of:
        0.10078075 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10078075 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.49879032 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the distribution of articles and citations in journals between 1998 and 2007 according to an empirical function with two exponents. These variables showed good fit to a beta function with two exponents.
  14. Farazi, M.: Faceted lightweight ontologies : a formalization and some experiments (2010) 0.02 
    0.022213632 = product of:
  0.044427264 = sum of:
    0.044427264 = product of:
      0.17770906 = sum of:
        0.17770906 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17770906 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.
  15. Kohn, R.S.: Of Descartes and of train schedules : Evaluating the Encyclopedia Judaica, Wikipedia, and other general and Jewish Studies encyclopedias (2010) 0.02 
    0.021819675 = product of:
  0.04363935 = sum of:
    0.04363935 = product of:
      0.0872787 = sum of:
        0.0872787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0872787 = score(doc=3633,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.43196514 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) within its broader historical context of the production of encyclopedias in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. The paper contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1905, and to the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica published in 1972; then contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to Wikipedia and to other projects of online encyclopedias. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a personal reflective review of the sources in question. Findings - That Encyclopaedia Judaica in its latest edition does not adequately replace the original first edition in terms of depth of scholarly work. It is considered that the model offered by Wikipedia could work well for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, allowing it to retain the core of the expert knowledge, and at the same time channel the energy of volunteer editors which has made Wikipedia such a success. Practical implications - The paper is of interest to those with an interest in encyclopedia design or Jewish studies. Originality/value - This paper provides a unique reflection on the latest edition of the encyclopedia and considers future models for its publication based on traditional and non-traditional methods.
  16. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.02 
    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.
  17. Hjoerland, B.; Scerri, E.; Dupré, J.: Forum: The Philosophy of Classification : The Periodic Table and the Philosophy of Classification - What is the Nature of the Periodic Table as a Classification System? - A Note on the Debate Between Hjørland and Scerri on the Significance of the Periodic Table (2011) 0.02 
    0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=4294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 4294, 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=4294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Thanks to Professor Eric Scerri for engaging in debate in this journal (Scerri 2011) by replying to my review (Hjørland 2008a) of his book (Scerri 2007). One of my points has been that we in our community (Knowledge Organization, KO / Library and Information Science, LIS) have been too isolated from broader academic fields related to classification and the organization of knowledge. The present debate is a step towards reversing this situation. Bezug zu: Scerri, E.R.: The periodic table: its story and its significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. xxii, 346 S. und die Rezension dazu in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland).
  18. Hammarfelt, B.: Citation analysis on the micro level : the example of Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (2011) 0.02 
    0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=4441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 4441, 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=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article employs citation analysis on a micro level-the level of the cited document; in this case, Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (1968/2007). The study shows how this frequently cited publication-more than 4,000 citations in Web of Science-has been received. The growth of citations and interdisciplinary citing is studied, and a novel approach-page citation analysis-is applied to study how different parts of Illuminations have been cited. The article demonstrates how bibliometric methods can be used together with qualitative accounts to map the impact and dissemination of a particular publication. Furthermore, it shows how bibliometric methods can be utilized to study intellectual structures in the humanities, and highlights the influence of the humanities on the social sciences and sciences.
    Content
    "One can go even further and remember that interruption is one of the fundamental devices of all structuring. It goes far beyond the sphere of art. To give only one example, it is the basis of quotation. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context." [Walter Benjamin (1968/2007, p. 151)]
  19. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.02 
    0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 737, 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=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.
  20. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.02 
    0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

Authors

Types

  • a 471
  • m 29
  • el 17
  • s 12
  • x 5
  • b 4
  • i 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications