Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.0141656315 = product of:
  0.028331263 = sum of:
    0.028331263 = product of:
      0.056662526 = sum of:
        0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056662526 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.22-29

0.014103786 = product of:
  0.028207572 = sum of:
    0.028207572 = product of:
      0.056415144 = sum of:
        0.056415144 = weight(_text_:research in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056415144 = score(doc=4589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0101785315 = product of:
  0.020357063 = sum of:
    0.020357063 = product of:
      0.040714126 = sum of:
        0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040714126 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relationships between authors based on characteristics of published literature have been studied for decades. Author cocitation analysis using mapping techniques has been most frequently used to study how closely two authors are thought to be in intellectual space based on how members of the research community co-cite their works. Other approaches exist to study author relatedness based more directly on the text of their published works. In this study we present static and dynamic word-based approaches using vector space modeling, as well as a topic-based approach based on latent Dirichlet allocation for mapping author research relatedness. Vector space modeling is used to define an author space consisting of works by a given author. Outcomes for the two word-based approaches and a topic-based approach for 50 prolific authors in library and information science are compared with more traditional author cocitation analysis using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The two word-based approaches produced similar outcomes except where two authors were frequent co-authors for the majority of their articles. The topic-based approach produced the most distinctive map.

0.009972882 = product of:
  0.019945765 = sum of:
    0.019945765 = product of:
      0.03989153 = sum of:
        0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 3170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03989153 = score(doc=3170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 3170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of the works of Hope A. Olson by conducting an ego-centric informetric analysis of her published works. Publication and citation data were collected from Google Scholar and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Classic informetrics techniques were applied to the datasets including co-authorship analysis, citer analysis, citation and co-citation analysis and text-based analysis. Co-citation and text-based data were analyzed and visualized using VOSviewer and CiteSpace, respectively. The analysis of her citation identity reveals how Dr. Olson situates her own research within the knowledge landscape while the analysis of her citation image reveals how others have situated her work in relation to the authors with whom she has been co-cited. This reflection of Dr. Olson's research contributions reveals the influence of her scholarship not only on knowledge organization but other areas of library and information science and allied disciplines.

0.008310735 = product of:
  0.01662147 = sum of:
    0.01662147 = product of:
      0.03324294 = sum of:
        0.03324294 = weight(_text_:research in 4544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324294 = score(doc=4544,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 4544, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data citation, where products of research such as data sets, software, and tissue cultures are shared and acknowledged, is becoming more common in the era of Open Science. Currently, the practice of formal data citation-where data references are included alongside bibliographic references in the reference section of a publication-is uncommon. We examine the prevalence of data citation, documenting data sharing and reuse, in a sample of full text articles from the biological/biomedical sciences, the fields with the most public data sets available documented by the Data Citation Index (DCI). We develop a method that combines automated text extraction with human assessment for revealing candidate occurrences of data sharing and reuse by using terms that are most likely to indicate their occurrence. The analysis reveals that informal data citation in the main text of articles is far more common than formal data citations in the references of articles. As a result, data sharers do not receive documented credit for their data contributions in a similar way as authors do for their research articles because informal data citations are not recorded in sources such as the DCI. Ongoing challenges for the study of data citation are also outlined.

0.008227208 = product of:
  0.016454415 = sum of:
    0.016454415 = product of:
      0.03290883 = sum of:
        0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290883 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on research examining the relationship of searcher performance and perception of performance, particulary for hypertext-based onformation retrieval systems for bibliographic data. Employs a prototype hypertext bibliographic retrieval system called HyperLynx. Evaluates its use by 83 subjects at the School of Library and Information Science and the Golda Meir Library at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Measures of system usgae indicate that there is no significant relationship between confidence and the number of record pages visited, although confident searchers searched for shorter time periods. The reality check measures shows that both novice and experienced searchers were over confident in their performance

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 18(1996) no.2, S.121-132

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=3414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates how computational overhead for topic model training may be reduced by selectively removing terms from the vocabulary of text corpora being modeled. We compare the impact of removing singly occurring terms, the top 0.5%, 1% and 5% most frequently occurring terms and both top 0.5% most frequent and singly occurring terms, along with changes in the number of topics modeled (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100) using three datasets. Four outcome measures are compared. The removal of singly occurring terms has little impact on outcomes for all of the measures tested. Document discriminative capacity, as measured by the document space density, is reduced by the removal of frequently occurring terms, but increases with higher numbers of topics. Vocabulary size does not greatly influence entropy, but entropy is affected by the number of topics. Finally, topic similarity, as measured by pairwise topic similarity and Jensen-Shannon divergence, decreases with the removal of frequent terms. The findings have implications for information science research in information retrieval and informetrics that makes use of topic modeling.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=1849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study compares the range of disciplines of citing journal articles to determine how closely related journals assigned to the same Web of Science research area are. The frequency distribution of disciplines by citing articles provides a signature for a cited journal that permits it to be compared with other journals using similarity comparison techniques. As an initial exploration, citing discipline data for 40 high-impact-factor journals assigned to the "information science and library science" category of the Web of Science were compared across 5 time periods. Similarity relationships were determined using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to compare the outcomes produced by the proposed citing discipline and established cocitation methods. The maps and clustering outcomes reveal that a number of journals in allied areas of the information science and library science category may not be very closely related to each other or may not be appropriately situated in the category studied. The citing discipline similarity data resulted in similar outcomes with the cocitation data but with some notable differences. Because the citing discipline method relies on a citing perspective different from cocitations, it may provide a complementary way to compare journal similarity that is less labor intensive than cocitation analysis.