Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024882881 = product of:
  0.07464864 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06130545 = sum of:
      0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034859132 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.012795856 = product of:
  0.07677513 = sum of:
    0.07677513 = sum of:
      0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044751476 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032023653 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

Date

27.12.2015 11:29:37

0.010257586 = product of:
  0.030772757 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.

Date

21.10.2006 19:29:49

0.00885545 = product of:
  0.026566349 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013223159 = product of:
      0.026446318 = sum of:
        0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026446318 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.0076857167 = product of:
  0.0461143 = sum of:
    0.0461143 = product of:
      0.0922286 = sum of:
        0.0922286 = weight(_text_:methods in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0922286 = score(doc=4626,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5876176 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

0.004929826 = product of:
  0.029578956 = sum of:
    0.029578956 = product of:
      0.05915791 = sum of:
        0.05915791 = weight(_text_:methods in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05915791 = score(doc=1338,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 1338, 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=1338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although designed for general Web searching, Webometrics and related research commercial search engines are also used to produce estimated hit counts or lists of URLs matching a query. Unfortunately, however, they do not return all matching URLs for a search and their hit count estimates are unreliable. In this article, we assess whether it is possible to obtain complete lists of matching URLs from Windows Live, and whether any of its hit count estimates are robust. As part of this, we introduce two new methods to extract extra URLs from search engines: automated query splitting and automated domain and TLD searching. Both methods successfully identify additional matching URLs but the findings suggest that there is no way to get complete lists of matching URLs or accurate hit counts from Windows Live, although some estimating suggestions are provided.

0.004929826 = product of:
  0.029578956 = sum of:
    0.029578956 = product of:
      0.05915791 = sum of:
        0.05915791 = weight(_text_:methods in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05915791 = score(doc=1004,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 1004, 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=1004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

General sentiment analysis for the social web has become increasingly useful for shedding light on the role of emotion in online communication and offline events in both academic research and data journalism. Nevertheless, existing general-purpose social web sentiment analysis algorithms may not be optimal for texts focussed around specific topics. This article introduces 2 new methods, mood setting and lexicon extension, to improve the accuracy of topic-specific lexical sentiment strength detection for the social web. Mood setting allows the topic mood to determine the default polarity for ostensibly neutral expressive text. Topic-specific lexicon extension involves adding topic-specific words to the default general sentiment lexicon. Experiments with 8 data sets show that both methods can improve sentiment analysis performance in corpora and are recommended when the topic focus is tightest.

0.004108188 = product of:
  0.024649128 = sum of:
    0.024649128 = product of:
      0.049298257 = sum of:
        0.049298257 = weight(_text_:methods in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049298257 = score(doc=4279,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0037292899 = product of:
  0.022375738 = sum of:
    0.022375738 = product of:
      0.044751476 = sum of:
        0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044751476 = score(doc=4908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 4908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Link analysis in various forms is now an established technique in many different subjects, reflecting the perceived importance of links and of the Web. A critical but very difficult issue is how to interpret the results of social science link analyses. lt is argued that the dynamic nature of the Web, its lack of quality control, and the online proliferation of copying and imitation mean that methodologies operating within a highly positivist, quantitative framework are ineffective. Conversely, the sheer variety of the Web makes application of qualitative methodologies and pure reason very problematic to large-scale studies. Methodology triangulation is consequently advocated, in combination with a warning that the Web is incapable of giving definitive answers to large-scale link analysis research questions concerning social factors underlying link creation. Finally, it is claimed that although theoretical frameworks are appropriate for guiding research, a Theory of Link Analysis is not possible.

0.0037292899 = product of:
  0.022375738 = sum of:
    0.022375738 = product of:
      0.044751476 = sum of:
        0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044751476 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.0035261759 = product of:
  0.021157054 = sum of:
    0.021157054 = product of:
      0.04231411 = sum of:
        0.04231411 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04231411 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.0034859132 = product of:
  0.020915478 = sum of:
    0.020915478 = product of:
      0.041830957 = sum of:
        0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041830957 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.

0.0034859132 = product of:
  0.020915478 = sum of:
    0.020915478 = product of:
      0.041830957 = sum of:
        0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041830957 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Social network sites (SNSs) such as MySpace and Facebook are important venues for interpersonal communication, especially among youth. One way in which members can communicate is to write public messages on each other's profile, but how is this unusual means of communication used in practice? An analysis of 2,293 public comment exchanges extracted from large samples of U.S. and U.K. MySpace members found them to be relatively rapid, but rarely used for prolonged exchanges. They seem to fulfill two purposes: making initial contact and keeping in touch occasionally such as at birthdays and other important dates. Although about half of the dialogs seem to exchange some gossip, the dialogs seem typically too short to play the role of gossip-based social grooming for typical pairs of Friends, but close Friends may still communicate extensively in SNSs with other methods.

0.0034859132 = product of:
  0.020915478 = sum of:
    0.020915478 = product of:
      0.041830957 = sum of:
        0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041830957 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.0031167285 = product of:
  0.01870037 = sum of:
    0.01870037 = product of:
      0.03740074 = sum of:
        0.03740074 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03740074 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.003113411 = product of:
  0.018680464 = sum of:
    0.018680464 = product of:
      0.03736093 = sum of:
        0.03736093 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03736093 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

3. 6.2007 16:37:29

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Statistics are essential to many areas of research and individual statistical techniques may change the ways in which problems are addressed as well as the types of problems that can be tackled. Hence, specific techniques may tend to generate high-impact findings within science. This article estimates the citation advantage of a technique by calculating the average citation rank of articles using it in the issue of the journal in which they were published. Applied to structural equation modeling (SEM) and four related techniques in 3 broad fields, the results show citation advantages that vary by technique and broad field. For example, SEM seems to be more influential in all broad fields than the 4 simpler methods, with one exception, and hence seems to be particularly worth adding to statistical curricula. In contrast, Pearson correlation apparently has the highest average impact in medicine but the least in psychology. In conclusion, the results suggest that the importance of a statistical technique may vary by discipline and that even simple techniques can help to generate high-impact research in some contexts.