-
Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011)
0.10
0.10057114 = product of:
0.1508567 = sum of:
0.09002314 = weight(_text_:search in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09002314 = score(doc=10,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.51520574 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
0.060833566 = product of:
0.12166713 = sum of:
0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12166713 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011)
0.07
0.073910534 = product of:
0.1108658 = sum of:
0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07501928 = score(doc=4626,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
0.03584652 = product of:
0.07169304 = sum of:
0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07169304 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of link and URL citation counting (2011)
0.07
0.07253622 = product of:
0.10880433 = sum of:
0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058109686 = score(doc=4533,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
0.05069464 = product of:
0.10138928 = sum of:
0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10138928 = score(doc=4533,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi (2016)
0.02
0.015815454 = product of:
0.04744636 = sum of:
0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04744636 = score(doc=3226,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.
-
Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017)
0.01
0.013419857 = product of:
0.04025957 = sum of:
0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04025957 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.01
0.011183213 = product of:
0.03354964 = sum of:
0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03354964 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.0068112854 = product of:
0.020433856 = sum of:
0.020433856 = product of:
0.040867712 = sum of:
0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040867712 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.0068112854 = product of:
0.020433856 = sum of:
0.020433856 = product of:
0.040867712 = sum of:
0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040867712 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.0068112854 = product of:
0.020433856 = sum of:
0.020433856 = product of:
0.040867712 = sum of:
0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040867712 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0068112854 = product of:
0.020433856 = sum of:
0.020433856 = product of:
0.040867712 = sum of:
0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040867712 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.0056760716 = product of:
0.017028214 = sum of:
0.017028214 = product of:
0.03405643 = sum of:
0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03405643 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.0056760716 = product of:
0.017028214 = sum of:
0.017028214 = product of:
0.03405643 = sum of:
0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03405643 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.0056760716 = product of:
0.017028214 = sum of:
0.017028214 = product of:
0.03405643 = sum of:
0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03405643 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.0056760716 = product of:
0.017028214 = sum of:
0.017028214 = product of:
0.03405643 = sum of:
0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03405643 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
