Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.02 
    0.02104019 = product of:
  0.06312057 = sum of:
    0.06312057 = sum of:
      0.027505806 = weight(_text_:of in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027505806 = score(doc=7659,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  2. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.00 
    0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=3007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Annals of library science and documentation. 38(1991) no.4, S.127-130
  3. Rousseau, R.: ¬A table for estimating the exponent in Lotka's law (1993) 0.00 
    0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=5653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 49(1993) no.4, S.409-412
  4. Harvey, L.; Rousseau, R.: Development of text-editing skill : from semantic and syntactic mappings to procedures (1995) 0.00 
    0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=3845,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3845, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Considers whether joint syntax (a single step linking object and procedure) or disjoint, 2 step, processes are best suited to particular tasks of text editing. Finds that specific procedures are not necessarily faster to use than general ones. users of joint editors consulted the help menu less often and for longer and experienced a greater workload than users of disjoint editors. The experiment shows that general text editing procedures obeying a disjoint systax minimize workload. Specific objects and joint syntax are advanced features that should be reserved for experienced users
  5. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Topological aspects of information retrieval (1998) 0.00 
    0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=2157,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.13, S.1144-1160
  6. Rousseau, R.: Bradford curves (1994) 0.00 
    0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 7304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=7304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 7304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    It is shown that generalized Leimkuhler functions give proper fits to a large variety of Bradford curves, including those exhibited a so-called Groos droop or a rising tail
  7. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A theoretical study of recall and precision using a topological approach to information retrieval (1998) 0.00 
    0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=3267,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Topologies for information retrieval systems are generated by certain subsets, called retrievals. Shows how recall and precision can be expressed using only retrievals. Investigates different types of retrieval systems: both threshold systems and close match systems and both optimal and non optimal retrieval. Highlights the relation with the hypergeometric and some non-standard distributions
  8. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Duality in information retrieval and the hypegeometric distribution (1997) 0.00 
    0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.5, S.499-496

Authors