Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.012245518 = product of:
  0.048982073 = sum of:
    0.048982073 = product of:
      0.097964145 = sum of:
        0.097964145 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097964145 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.012245518 = product of:
  0.048982073 = sum of:
    0.048982073 = product of:
      0.097964145 = sum of:
        0.097964145 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097964145 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.010823611 = product of:
  0.043294445 = sum of:
    0.043294445 = product of:
      0.08658889 = sum of:
        0.08658889 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08658889 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.009986691 = product of:
  0.039946765 = sum of:
    0.039946765 = product of:
      0.07989353 = sum of:
        0.07989353 = weight(_text_:methods in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07989353 = score(doc=4259,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.43973273 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

0.009884261 = product of:
  0.039537042 = sum of:
    0.039537042 = product of:
      0.079074085 = sum of:
        0.079074085 = weight(_text_:methods in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079074085 = score(doc=3585,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4352225 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Information science / Statistical methods
Scientific literature / Statistical methods
Technical literature / Statistical methods

Subject

Information science / Statistical methods
Scientific literature / Statistical methods
Technical literature / Statistical methods

0.008736535 = product of:
  0.03494614 = sum of:
    0.03494614 = product of:
      0.06989228 = sum of:
        0.06989228 = weight(_text_:methods in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06989228 = score(doc=1960,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.384686 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.

0.0085600205 = product of:
  0.034240082 = sum of:
    0.034240082 = product of:
      0.068480164 = sum of:
        0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068480164 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=7080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In spite of numerous studies of citation behaviour and the wide recognition by journal editors of the need to acknowledge intellectual debts, authors and referees need explicit reminders as to when formal refrences or acknowledgements are appropriate. Notes a 3 year experiment involving graduate students which demonstrated the varying perceptions of the need for documentation off terminology, ideas and methods. Suggests a tentative tutorial for journal editors that should be modified in each scholarly context

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=7105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Part 2 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Reports on studies of author co-citation, periodical by periodical citation analysis and country by country citation analysis in addition to the mapping of science as an application of citation analysis. Considers the limitations, problems and reliability of citation analysis

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data

0.0076534487 = product of:
  0.030613795 = sum of:
    0.030613795 = product of:
      0.06122759 = sum of:
        0.06122759 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06122759 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.0071333502 = product of:
  0.028533401 = sum of:
    0.028533401 = product of:
      0.057066802 = sum of:
        0.057066802 = weight(_text_:methods in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057066802 = score(doc=4279,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.0071333502 = product of:
  0.028533401 = sum of:
    0.028533401 = product of:
      0.057066802 = sum of:
        0.057066802 = weight(_text_:methods in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057066802 = score(doc=61,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.

0.0070616566 = product of:
  0.028246626 = sum of:
    0.028246626 = product of:
      0.056493253 = sum of:
        0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056493253 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data

0.0070616566 = product of:
  0.028246626 = sum of:
    0.028246626 = product of:
      0.056493253 = sum of:
        0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056493253 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails

0.0069892276 = product of:
  0.02795691 = sum of:
    0.02795691 = product of:
      0.05591382 = sum of:
        0.05591382 = weight(_text_:methods in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05591382 = score(doc=5797,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.3077488 = fieldWeight in 5797, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We here perform an analysis of all 1128 publications produced by scientists during their employment at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, a geophysical research laboratory founded in 1972 that currently employs 23 Ph.D.-level scientists. We thus assess research performance using as bibliometric indicators such statistics as publications per year, citations per paper, and cited half-lives. To characterize the research style of individual scientists and to obtain insight into the origin of certain publication-counting discrepancies, we classified the 1128 publications into four categories that differed significantly with respect to statistics such as lifetime citation rates, fraction of papers never-cited after 10 years, and cited half-life. The categories were: mainstream (prestige journal) publications -32.6 lifetime cit/pap, 2.4% never cited, and 6.9 year half-life; archival (other refereed)-12.0 lifetime cit/pap. 21.5% never cited, and 9.5 years half-life; articles published as proceedings of conferences-5.4 lifetime cit/pap, 26.6% never cited, and 5.4 years half-life; and "other" publications (news articles, book reviews, etc.)-4.2 lifetime cit/pap, 57.1% never cited, and 1.9 years half-life. Because determining cited half-lives is highly similar to a well-studied phenomenon in earthquake seismology, which was familiar to us, we thoroughly evaluate five different methods for determining the cited half-life and discuss the robustness and limitations of the various methods. Unfortunately, even when data are numerous the various methods often obtain very different values for the half-life. Our preferred method determines halflife from the ratio of citations appearing in back-to-back 5-year periods. We also evaluate the reliability of the citation count data used for these kinds of analysis and conclude that citation count data are often imprecise. All observations suggest that reported differences in cited half-lives must be quite large to be significant

0.006494167 = product of:
  0.025976667 = sum of:
    0.025976667 = product of:
      0.051953334 = sum of:
        0.051953334 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051953334 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.006122759 = product of:
  0.024491036 = sum of:
    0.024491036 = product of:
      0.048982073 = sum of:
        0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048982073 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22