Search (235 results, page 1 of 12)

0.05724764 = product of:
  0.2862382 = sum of:
    0.2862382 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2862382 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38197818 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.052648105 = product of:
  0.13162026 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
    0.053347398 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053347398 = score(doc=6936,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.04639807 = product of:
  0.11599517 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

0.03945523 = product of:
  0.09863808 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
    0.020365225 = product of:
      0.04073045 = sum of:
        0.04073045 = weight(_text_:searching in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04073045 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.

0.033909243 = product of:
  0.08477311 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.024417413 = product of:
      0.048834827 = sum of:
        0.048834827 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048834827 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3691, 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=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

International bibliographic databases and related biblimetric indicators together provide an analytical framework and appropriate measure to cover both the 'supply side' - research capabilities and outputs - and 'demand side' - collaboration, diffusion and citation impact - related to information and communication technologies (ICT) research. Presents results of such a bibliometric study describing macro level features of this ICT knowledge base

Date

22. 5.1999 19:26:54

0.030994475 = product of:
  0.15497237 = sum of:
    0.15497237 = weight(_text_:line in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15497237 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.6133578 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.029874546 = product of:
  0.14937273 = sum of:
    0.14937273 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14937273 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 28(1999) no.3, S.76-77

0.027443314 = product of:
  0.068608284 = sum of:
    0.053347398 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053347398 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015260884 = product of:
      0.030521767 = sum of:
        0.030521767 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030521767 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.027443314 = product of:
  0.068608284 = sum of:
    0.053347398 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053347398 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.015260884 = product of:
      0.030521767 = sum of:
        0.030521767 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030521767 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.026153887 = product of:
  0.065384716 = sum of:
    0.022633385 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022633385 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.1290374 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.04275133 = sum of:
      0.024438271 = weight(_text_:searching in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024438271 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.13408373 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.01831306 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01831306 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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).

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024256555 = product of:
  0.12128277 = sum of:
    0.12128277 = sum of:
      0.084656656 = weight(_text_:searching in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084656656 = score(doc=2742,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.46447968 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
      0.03662612 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03662612 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.022176098 = product of:
  0.11088049 = sum of:
    0.11088049 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11088049 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.63215154 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.021916403 = product of:
  0.10958201 = sum of:
    0.10958201 = weight(_text_:line in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10958201 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.021916403 = product of:
  0.10958201 = sum of:
    0.10958201 = weight(_text_:line in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10958201 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This brief communication analyzes the statistics and methods Lotka used to derive his inverse square law of scientific productivity from the standpoint of modern theory. It finds that he violated the norms of this theory by extremely truncating his data on the right. It also proves that Lotka himself played an important role in establishing the commonly used method of identifying power-law behavior by the R2 fit to a regression line on a log-log plot that modern theory considers unreliable by basing the derivation of his law on this very method.

0.02133896 = product of:
  0.106694795 = sum of:
    0.106694795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106694795 = score(doc=917,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

0.021193277 = product of:
  0.05298319 = sum of:
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
    0.015260884 = product of:
      0.030521767 = sum of:
        0.030521767 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030521767 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.021193277 = product of:
  0.05298319 = sum of:
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.015260884 = product of:
      0.030521767 = sum of:
        0.030521767 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030521767 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.018785488 = product of:
  0.093927436 = sum of:
    0.093927436 = weight(_text_:line in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093927436 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multidimensional data analysis or On-line analytical processing (OLAP) offers a single subject-oriented source for analyzing summary data based an various dimensions. We demonstrate that the OLAP approach gives a promising starting point for advanced analysis and comparison among summary data in informetrics applications. At the moment there is no single precise, commonly accepted logical/conceptual model for multidimensional analysis. This is because the requirements of applications vary considerably. We develop a conceptual/logical multidimensional model for supporting the complex and unpredictable needs of informetrics. Summary data are considered with respect of some dimensions. By changing dimensions the user may construct other views an the same summary data. We develop a multidimensional query language whose basic idea is to support the definition of views in a way, which is natural and intuitive for lay users in the informetrics area. We show that this view-oriented query language has a great expressive power and its degree of declarativity is greater than in contemporary operation-oriented or SQL (Structured Query Language)-like OLAP query languages.

0.016954621 = product of:
  0.042386554 = sum of:
    0.030177847 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030177847 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012208707 = product of:
      0.024417413 = sum of:
        0.024417413 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024417413 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.01686993 = product of:
  0.08434965 = sum of:
    0.08434965 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08434965 = score(doc=4111,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004-2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92% of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics-within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a concentration measure based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used.