Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010099938 = product of:
  0.070699565 = sum of:
    0.070699565 = weight(_text_:united in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070699565 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.0081791375 = product of:
  0.057253957 = sum of:
    0.057253957 = product of:
      0.11450791 = sum of:
        0.11450791 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11450791 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (RT), the ratio Cognitive Effects/Processing Effort defines the relevance of a communication. The tf*idf formula from information retrieval is used to operationalize this ratio for any item co-occurring with a user-supplied seed term in bibliometric distributions. The tf weight of the item predicts its effect on the user in the context of the seed term, and its idf weight predicts the user's processing effort in relating the item to the seed term. The idf measure, also known as statistical specificity, is shown to have unsuspected applications in quantifying interrelated concepts such as topical and nontopical relevance, levels of user expertise, and levels of authority. A new kind of visualization, the pennant diagram, illustrates these claims. The bibliometric distributions visualized are the works cocited with a seed work (Moby Dick), the authors cocited with a seed author (White HD, for maximum interpretability), and the books and articles cocited with a seed article (S.A. Harter's "Psychological Relevance and Information Science," which introduced RT to information scientists in 1992). Pennant diagrams use bibliometric data and information retrieval techniques on the system side to mimic a relevancetheoretic model of cognition on the user side. Relevance theory may thus influence the design of new visual information retrieval interfaces. Generally, when information retrieval and bibliometrics are interpreted in light of RT, the implications are rich: A single sociocognitive theory may serve to integrate research on literature-based systems with research on their users, areas now largely separate.