Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

0.08098909 = product of:
  0.12148364 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.1108061 = sum of:
      0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04004071 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.07076539 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07076539 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Footnote

This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429

0.050362572 = product of:
  0.07554386 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.06648366 = sum of:
      0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024024425 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.029701663 = product of:
  0.044552494 = sum of:
    0.0074742786 = weight(_text_:in in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074742786 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.037078217 = product of:
      0.07415643 = sum of:
        0.07415643 = weight(_text_:science in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07415643 = score(doc=1515,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.5389985 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

COMPASS

Information science / Statistical mathematics

LCSH

Information science / Statistical methods
Library science / Statistical methods

Subject

Information science / Statistical mathematics
Information science / Statistical methods
Library science / Statistical methods

0.022695113 = product of:
  0.034042668 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=2558,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
    0.021229617 = product of:
      0.042459235 = sum of:
        0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042459235 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper shows that the present evaluation methods in information retrieval (basically recall R and precision P and in some cases fallout F ) lack universal comparability in the sense that their values depend on the generality of the IR problem. A solution is given by using all "parts" of the database, including the non-relevant documents and also the not-retrieved documents. It turns out that the solution is given by introducing the measure M being the fraction of the not-retrieved documents that are relevant (hence the "miss" measure). We prove that - independent of the IR problem or of the IR action - the quadruple (P,R,F,M) belongs to a universal IR surface, being the same for all IR-activities. This universality is then exploited by defining a new measure for evaluation in IR allowing for unbiased comparisons of all IR results. We also show that only using one, two or even three measures from the set {P,R,F,M} necessary leads to evaluation measures that are non-universal and hence not capable of comparing different IR situations.

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22

0.020541014 = product of:
  0.03081152 = sum of:
    0.014795236 = weight(_text_:in in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795236 = score(doc=3058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article studies the probabilities of the occurence of multi-word (m-word) phrases (m=2,3,...) in relation to the probabilities of occurence of the single words. It is well known that, in the latter case, the lae of Zipf is valid (i.e., a power law). We prove that in the case of m-word phrases (m>=2), this is not the case. We present 2 independent proof of this

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.233-241

0.020541014 = product of:
  0.03081152 = sum of:
    0.014795236 = weight(_text_:in in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795236 = score(doc=6759,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365

0.020541014 = product of:
  0.03081152 = sum of:
    0.014795236 = weight(_text_:in in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795236 = score(doc=147,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.452-454

0.020484831 = product of:
  0.030727245 = sum of:
    0.016712997 = weight(_text_:in in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016712997 = score(doc=50,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785

0.019308537 = product of:
  0.028962806 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=450,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article studies concentration aspects of bibliographies. More, in particular, we study the impact of incompleteness of such a bibliography on its concentration values (i.e., its degree of inequality of production of its sources). Incompleteness is modeled by sampling in the complete bibliography. The model is general enough to comprise truncation of a bibliography as well as a systematic sample on sources or items. In all cases we prove that the sampled bibliography (or incomplete one) has a higher concentration value than the complete one. These models, hence, shed some light on the measurement of production inequality in incomplete bibliographies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.271-281

0.019308537 = product of:
  0.028962806 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=3124,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2142-2144

0.019308537 = product of:
  0.028962806 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=3432,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Naranan's important theorem, published in Nature in 1970, states that if the number of journals grows exponentially and if the number of articles in each journal grows exponentially (at the same rate for each journal), then the system satisfies Lotka's law and a formula for the Lotka's exponent is given in function of the growth rates of the journals and the articles. This brief communication re-proves this result by showing that the system satisfies Zipf's law, which is equivalent with Lotka's law. The proof is short and algebraic and does not use infinitesimal arguments.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2581-2583

0.01930819 = product of:
  0.028962284 = sum of:
    0.016950073 = weight(_text_:in in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016950073 = score(doc=2004,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1608-1616

0.018477919 = product of:
  0.027716877 = sum of:
    0.0177067 = weight(_text_:in in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0177067 = score(doc=271,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
    0.010010177 = product of:
      0.020020355 = sum of:
        0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020020355 = score(doc=271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Herdan's law in linguistics and Heaps' law in information retrieval are different formulations of the same phenomenon. Stated briefly and in linguistic terms they state that vocabularies' sizes are concave increasing power laws of texts' sizes. This study investigates these laws from a purely mathematical and informetric point of view. A general informetric argument shows that the problem of proving these laws is, in fact, ill-posed. Using the more general terminology of sources and items, the author shows by presenting exact formulas from Lotkaian informetrics that the total number T of sources is not only a function of the total number A of items, but is also a function of several parameters (e.g., the parameters occurring in Lotka's law). Consequently, it is shown that a fixed T(or A) value can lead to different possible A (respectively, T) values. Limiting the T(A)-variability to increasing samples (e.g., in a text as done in linguistics) the author then shows, in a purely mathematical way, that for large sample sizes T~ A**phi, where phi is a constant, phi < 1 but close to 1, hence roughly, Heaps' or Herdan's law can be proved without using any linguistic or informetric argument. The author also shows that for smaller samples, a is not a constant but essentially decreases as confirmed by practical examples. Finally, an exact informetric argument on random sampling in the items shows that, in most cases, T= T(A) is a concavely increasing function, in accordance with practical examples.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.702-709

0.017973388 = product of:
  0.02696008 = sum of:
    0.012945832 = weight(_text_:in in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012945832 = score(doc=1881,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1304-1312

0.017558426 = product of:
  0.026337638 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=5685,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.5, S.371-377

0.017558426 = product of:
  0.026337638 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=3336,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.370-373

0.017365353 = product of:
  0.026048029 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.

Footnote

Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

0.016740335 = product of:
  0.025110502 = sum of:
    0.015100324 = weight(_text_:in in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015100324 = score(doc=1608,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
    0.010010177 = product of:
      0.020020355 = sum of:
        0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020020355 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Type/Token-Taken informetrics is a new part of informetrics that studies the use of items rather than the items itself. Here, items are the objects that are produced by the sources (e.g., journals producing articles, authors producing papers, etc.). In linguistics a source is also called a type (e.g., a word), and an item a token (e.g., the use of words in texts). In informetrics, types that occur often, for example, in a database will also be requested often, for example, in information retrieval. The relative use of these occurrences will be higher than their relative occurrences itself; hence, the name Type/ Token-Taken informetrics. This article studies the frequency distribution of Type/Token-Taken informetrics, starting from the one of Type/Token informetrics (i.e., source-item relationships). We are also studying the average number my* of item uses in Type/Token-Taken informetrics and compare this with the classical average number my in Type/Token informetrics. We show that my* >= my always, and that my* is an increasing function of my. A method is presented to actually calculate my* from my, and a given a, which is the exponent in Lotka's frequency distribution of Type/Token informetrics. We leave open the problem of developing non-Lotkaian Type/TokenTaken informetrics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.603-610

0.016556047 = product of:
  0.02483407 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=2009,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
    0.014156529 = product of:
      0.028313057 = sum of:
        0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028313057 = score(doc=2009,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1688-1693

0.016550176 = product of:
  0.024825262 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=376,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In a previous work (Egghe, 2011), the first author showed that Benford's law (describing the logarithmic distribution of the numbers 1, 2, ... , 9 as first digits of data in decimal form) is related to the classical law of Zipf with exponent 1. The work of Campanario and Coslado (2011), however, shows that Benford's law does not always fit practical data in a statistical sense. In this article, we use a generalization of Benford's law related to the general law of Zipf with exponent ? > 0. Using data from Campanario and Coslado, we apply nonlinear least squares to determine the optimal ? and show that this generalized law of Benford fits the data better than the classical law of Benford.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1662-1665