Search (142 results, page 1 of 8)

0.12052153 = product of:
  0.24104306 = sum of:
    0.24104306 = sum of:
      0.20627843 = weight(_text_:media in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20627843 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.8581759 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.03476463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03476463 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.

0.049365982 = product of:
  0.098731965 = sum of:
    0.098731965 = product of:
      0.19746393 = sum of:
        0.19746393 = weight(_text_:media in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19746393 = score(doc=239,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.82150507 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study focuses on the web presence of the main Spanish media and seeks to determine whether hyperlink analysis of media and political parties can provide insight into their political orientation. The research included all major national media and political parties in Spain. Inlink and co-link data about these organizations were collected and analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and other statistical methods. In the MDS map, media are clustered based on their political orientation. There are significantly more co-links between media and parties with the same political orientation than there are between those with different political orientations. Findings from the study suggest the potential of using link analysis to gain new insights into the interactions among media and political parties.

0.04847996 = product of:
  0.09695992 = sum of:
    0.09695992 = sum of:
      0.062195294 = weight(_text_:media in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062195294 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.03476463 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03476463 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.047746565 = product of:
  0.09549313 = sum of:
    0.09549313 = sum of:
      0.07463435 = weight(_text_:media in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07463435 = score(doc=3809,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.31049973 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.020858778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020858778 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar.

0.04664647 = product of:
  0.09329294 = sum of:
    0.09329294 = product of:
      0.18658587 = sum of:
        0.18658587 = weight(_text_:media in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18658587 = score(doc=215,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.7762493 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.

0.045704022 = product of:
  0.091408044 = sum of:
    0.091408044 = product of:
      0.18281609 = sum of:
        0.18281609 = weight(_text_:media in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18281609 = score(doc=3781,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.76056594 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

0.03770389 = product of:
  0.07540778 = sum of:
    0.07540778 = product of:
      0.15081556 = sum of:
        0.15081556 = weight(_text_:media in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15081556 = score(doc=1111,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.62743485 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.

0.037317175 = product of:
  0.07463435 = sum of:
    0.07463435 = product of:
      0.1492687 = sum of:
        0.1492687 = weight(_text_:media in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1492687 = score(doc=5057,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.62099946 = fieldWeight in 5057, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5057)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Increasingly researchers and academic research institutions are being asked to demonstrate the quality and impact of their research. Traditionally researchers have used text-based outputs to achieve these objectives. This paper discusses the introduction and subsequent review of a new service at a major Australian university, designed to encourage researchers to use media, particularly visual formats, in promoting their research. Findings from the review have highlighted the importance of researchers working in partnership with in-house media professionals to produce short, relatable, digestible, and engaging visual products. As a result of these findings, the authors have presented a four-phase media development model to assist researchers to tell their research story. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for the institution as a whole and, more specifically, libraries.

0.03518297 = product of:
  0.07036594 = sum of:
    0.07036594 = product of:
      0.14073189 = sum of:
        0.14073189 = weight(_text_:media in 2154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14073189 = score(doc=2154,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.5854839 = fieldWeight in 2154, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We use a social network approach to examine how work and friendship ties in a university research group were associated with the kinds of media used for different kind of information exchange. The use of e-mail, unscheduled face-to-face encounters, and scheduled face-to-face meetings predominated for the exchange of 6 kinds of information: receiving work, giving work, collaborative writing, computer programming, sociability and major emotional support. Few pairs used synchronous desktop videoconferencing or the telephone

0.034768227 = product of:
  0.069536455 = sum of:
    0.069536455 = product of:
      0.13907291 = sum of:
        0.13907291 = weight(_text_:media in 2892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13907291 = score(doc=2892,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.5785821 = fieldWeight in 2892, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Analyzing hyperlink patterns has been a major research topic since the early days of the web. Numerous studies reported uncovering rich information and methodological advances. However, very few studies thus far examined hyperlinks in the rapidly developing sphere of social media. This paper reports a study that helps fill this gap. The study analyzed links originating from tweets to the websites of 3 types of organizations (government, education, and business). Data were collected over an 8-month period to observe the fluctuation and reliability of the individual data set. Hyperlink data from the general web (not social media sites) were also collected and compared with social media data. The study found that the 2 types of hyperlink data correlated significantly and that analyzing the 2 together can help organizations see their relative strength or weakness in the two platforms. The study also found that both types of inlink data correlated with offline measures of organizations' performance. Twitter data from a relatively short period were fairly reliable in estimating performance measures. The timelier nature of social media data as well as the date/time stamps on tweets make this type of data potentially more valuable than that from the general web.

0.027811704 = product of:
  0.05562341 = sum of:
    0.05562341 = product of:
      0.11124682 = sum of:
        0.11124682 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11124682 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.027811704 = product of:
  0.05562341 = sum of:
    0.05562341 = product of:
      0.11124682 = sum of:
        0.11124682 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11124682 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.027811704 = product of:
  0.05562341 = sum of:
    0.05562341 = product of:
      0.11124682 = sum of:
        0.11124682 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11124682 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.026931353 = product of:
  0.053862706 = sum of:
    0.053862706 = product of:
      0.10772541 = sum of:
        0.10772541 = weight(_text_:media in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10772541 = score(doc=1229,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.026931353 = product of:
  0.053862706 = sum of:
    0.053862706 = product of:
      0.10772541 = sum of:
        0.10772541 = weight(_text_:media in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10772541 = score(doc=3522,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.

0.026931353 = product of:
  0.053862706 = sum of:
    0.053862706 = product of:
      0.10772541 = sum of:
        0.10772541 = weight(_text_:media in 5328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10772541 = score(doc=5328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 5328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As the online dissemination of scholarly outputs gets faster and easier, altmetrics, social media based indices, have emerged alongside traditional metrics for research evaluation. In a two-phase survey, we investigate scholars' familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics. In this paper, we present the second phase with 448 participants. We found few traditional metrics, like the Journal Impact Factor and number of citations, are familiar to and often used by scholars for research evaluation. Among altmetrics, only views/downloads, readers, and followers are known to more than half the respondents. Unseen benefits and lack of time are hindrances to using metrics for the evaluation of research outputs. Although social media are well-known, scholars prefer promoting their research by publishing in journals and attending conferences. We found social media usage, perceived ease of use and usefulness of altmetrics affect the usage of altmetrics. Findings suggest altmetrics have attracted attention in academia and could be considered complementary to traditional metrics. We acknowledge that due to the limited sample size, statistics and demographics in this study, findings cannot be said to be representative of the entire academic population worldwide. Future studies are needed that cover a wider range of academic disciplines around the world.

0.024878116 = product of:
  0.049756233 = sum of:
    0.049756233 = product of:
      0.099512465 = sum of:
        0.099512465 = weight(_text_:media in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099512465 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The accrual of symbolic capital is an important aspect of academic life. Successful capital formation is commonly signified by the trappings of scholarly distinction or acknowledged status as a public intellectual. We consider and compare three potential indices of symbolic capital: citation counts, Web hits, and media mentions. Our Eindings, which are domain specific, suggest that public intellectuals are notable by their absence within the information studies community.

0.024878116 = product of:
  0.049756233 = sum of:
    0.049756233 = product of:
      0.099512465 = sum of:
        0.099512465 = weight(_text_:media in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099512465 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024582304 = product of:
  0.049164608 = sum of:
    0.049164608 = product of:
      0.098329216 = sum of:
        0.098329216 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098329216 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.024582304 = product of:
  0.049164608 = sum of:
    0.049164608 = product of:
      0.098329216 = sum of:
        0.098329216 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098329216 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28