Search (720 results, page 1 of 36)

0.04818783 = product of:
  0.14456348 = sum of:
    0.14456348 = product of:
      0.43369043 = sum of:
        0.43369043 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43369043 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.040156525 = product of:
  0.12046957 = sum of:
    0.12046957 = product of:
      0.3614087 = sum of:
        0.3614087 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3614087 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.032488484 = product of:
  0.09746545 = sum of:
    0.09746545 = sum of:
      0.06663565 = weight(_text_:2005 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06663565 = score(doc=4147,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.33821708 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.030829797 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030829797 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

0.031179328 = product of:
  0.09353798 = sum of:
    0.09353798 = sum of:
      0.056542225 = weight(_text_:2005 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056542225 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.2869867 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
      0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036995754 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific oeuvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.

Date

22. 3.2013 16:21:09

0.031179328 = product of:
  0.09353798 = sum of:
    0.09353798 = sum of:
      0.056542225 = weight(_text_:2005 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056542225 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.2869867 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036995754 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.02810957 = product of:
  0.0843287 = sum of:
    0.0843287 = product of:
      0.2529861 = sum of:
        0.2529861 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2529861 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.025982773 = product of:
  0.07794832 = sum of:
    0.07794832 = sum of:
      0.047118522 = weight(_text_:2005 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047118522 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.23915559 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.030829797 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030829797 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

0.024093915 = product of:
  0.07228174 = sum of:
    0.07228174 = product of:
      0.21684521 = sum of:
        0.21684521 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21684521 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.024093915 = product of:
  0.07228174 = sum of:
    0.07228174 = product of:
      0.21684521 = sum of:
        0.21684521 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21684521 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.022488296 = product of:
  0.06746489 = sum of:
    0.06746489 = sum of:
      0.04896701 = weight(_text_:2005 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04896701 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.24853781 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.018497877 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018497877 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.020786218 = product of:
  0.062358655 = sum of:
    0.062358655 = sum of:
      0.03769482 = weight(_text_:2005 in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03769482 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.19132447 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.024663838 = weight(_text_:22 in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024663838 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 946, 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=946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Mr. Rokicki, Sie haben die "Gotteszahl" gefunden, die kleinstmögliche Zahl von Zügen, die den Zauberwürfel aus jeder beliebigen Position in den Urzustand versetzt. "Gotteszahl" klingt nach etwas Bedeutenderem für die Menschheit. Für mich ist sie wichtig, für die meisten Menschen wohl höchstens interessant. Ich bin sehr erleichtert. Es gab noch ein anderes Team, das daran gearbeitet hat. Enttäuscht bin ich aber, dass das Ergebnis nicht interessanter ist als 20. 21 zum Beispiel. Was macht die 21 interessanter? Wir kennen schon lange Würfel-Stellungen, die sich mit 20 Zügen lösen lassen. Es wäre spannend gewesen, wenn es auch einige gegeben hätte, für die man 21 braucht. Wie fanden Sie die Gotteszahl? Der Durchbruch kam 2005 an Thanksgiving. Da fuhr ich mit meiner Familie durch Virginia, wir besichtigten Bürgerkriegs-Denkmäler. Wir waren lange unterwegs, ich hatte viel Zeit zum Nachdenkenund notierte mir die Ergebnisse. Welche Idee hatten Sie damals? Wenn man ein Puzzle löst, geht man die meiste Zeit falsche Wege. Man probiert etwas aus, merkt, dass das falsch war - und geht wieder zurück. In Virginia fiel mir auf, dass beim Zauberwürfel jeder falsche Weg für eine Lösung, der richtige für eine andere ist. Ich erfand eine Möglichkeit, wie sich ein Computerprogramm einen falschen Weg als richtigen für eine andere Lösung merken konnte. Dann haben wir die 43 Trillionen Würfelpositionen unterteilt in 2 Milliarden Untergruppen.

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22

0.020078262 = product of:
  0.060234785 = sum of:
    0.060234785 = product of:
      0.18070436 = sum of:
        0.18070436 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18070436 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.020078262 = product of:
  0.060234785 = sum of:
    0.060234785 = product of:
      0.18070436 = sum of:
        0.18070436 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18070436 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.020078262 = product of:
  0.060234785 = sum of:
    0.060234785 = product of:
      0.18070436 = sum of:
        0.18070436 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18070436 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, 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=855)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.019236058 = product of:
  0.05770817 = sum of:
    0.05770817 = product of:
      0.11541634 = sum of:
        0.11541634 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11541634 = score(doc=1309,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.5858092 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.

0.01818794 = product of:
  0.05456382 = sum of:
    0.05456382 = sum of:
      0.032982964 = weight(_text_:2005 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032982964 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.16740891 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.021580856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021580856 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550987 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research limitations/implications In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves. Social implications When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be. Originality/value By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01644256 = product of:
  0.049327675 = sum of:
    0.049327675 = product of:
      0.09865535 = sum of:
        0.09865535 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09865535 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.016322337 = product of:
  0.04896701 = sum of:
    0.04896701 = product of:
      0.09793402 = sum of:
        0.09793402 = weight(_text_:2005 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09793402 = score(doc=56,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.49707562 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge engineering and information mapping are two recent scientific disciplines in constant development where mathematics, linguistics, computer science, and information visualization converge. Their main focus is to discover and display new knowledge in large document databases. They have broad and innovative fields of application for strategic scouting in science and technology, knowledge management, business intelligence, and scientific and technological evaluation. This article presents a new method for mapping the strategic research network and illustrates its application to the strategic analysis of the knowledge domain "Spanish Research in Protected Areas for the Period 1981-2005." This strategic knowledge is displayed through a set of two-dimensional cartographic maps and three-dimensional images of two networks: the international network WoS_KWAJ (1981-2005) and the national network IEDCYT_KWAJ (1981-2005). These maps can be very useful in decision-making processes for science and technology policy.

0.01606261 = product of:
  0.04818783 = sum of:
    0.04818783 = product of:
      0.14456348 = sum of:
        0.14456348 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14456348 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3858332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.014533306 = product of:
  0.043599915 = sum of:
    0.043599915 = product of:
      0.08719983 = sum of:
        0.08719983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08719983 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550987 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05