Search (488 results, page 1 of 25)

0.090481505 = product of:
  0.18096301 = sum of:
    0.18096301 = sum of:
      0.14688411 = weight(_text_:500 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14688411 = score(doc=661,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.034078896 = weight(_text_:22 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034078896 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 661, 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=661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explicit definition of the limits of citation analysis demands additional tests for the validity of citation analysis. The stability of citation rankings over time can be regarded as confirming the validity of evaluative citation analysis. This stability over time was investigated for two sets of citation records from the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for articles published in journals classified in Journal Citation Reports as Mathematics. These sets are of all such articles for the 1960s and for the 1970s. This study employs only descriptive statistics and draws no inferences to any larger population. The study found a high correlation from one decade to the next of rankings among sets of most highly cited articles. However, the study found a low correlation for rankings among articles whose ranks were the 500 directly below those of the 500 most cited. This perhaps expected result is discussed in terms of the Glänzel-Schubert-Schoepflin stochastic model for citation processes and also in connection with an account of the purposes of evaluative citation analysis. This interpretative context suggests why the limitations of citation analysis may be inherent to citation analysis even when it is done well.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:23:35

0.08276498 = product of:
  0.16552997 = sum of:
    0.16552997 = sum of:
      0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124635294 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
      0.040894672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040894672 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.493-500

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06897083 = product of:
  0.13794166 = sum of:
    0.13794166 = sum of:
      0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103862755 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.034078896 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034078896 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:34:49

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.500-515

0.06658283 = product of:
  0.13316566 = sum of:
    0.13316566 = product of:
      0.39949694 = sum of:
        0.39949694 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39949694 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4264955 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.062317647 = product of:
  0.124635294 = sum of:
    0.124635294 = product of:
      0.24927059 = sum of:
        0.24927059 = weight(_text_:500 in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24927059 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.81052876 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.051931378 = product of:
  0.103862755 = sum of:
    0.103862755 = product of:
      0.20772551 = sum of:
        0.20772551 = weight(_text_:500 in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20772551 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.67544067 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23972/full. Vgl. das Erratum in JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.500.

0.05140944 = product of:
  0.10281888 = sum of:
    0.10281888 = product of:
      0.20563775 = sum of:
        0.20563775 = weight(_text_:500 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20563775 = score(doc=4463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.6686521 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of this article is to explore the manifestation of culture in the design of English-language and Chinese-language corporate websites, using Hofstede's dimensions of culture. Data were gathered from the 2010 Global 500 list published by Fortune magazine. Only multinational corporations that have both English-language and Chinese-language websites were analyzed (N=223). The results indicate that the Chinese-language and English-language websites differ significantly in 4 out of Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and long-term and short-term dimensions. Cultural differences are indeed reflected in the website designs of the Global 500 corporations, though not exactly in the direction predicted by Hofstede's model.

0.05140944 = product of:
  0.10281888 = sum of:
    0.10281888 = product of:
      0.20563775 = sum of:
        0.20563775 = weight(_text_:500 in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20563775 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.6686521 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-6-500.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.6, S.500-516

0.0415451 = product of:
  0.0830902 = sum of:
    0.0830902 = product of:
      0.1661804 = sum of:
        0.1661804 = weight(_text_:500 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1661804 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The S-shaped functional relation between the mean citation score and the proportion of top 10% publications for the 500 Leiden Ranking universities is explained using results of the shifted Lotka function. Also the concave or convex relation between the proportion of top 100?% publications, for different fractions ?, is explained using the obtained new informetric model.

0.0415451 = product of:
  0.0830902 = sum of:
    0.0830902 = product of:
      0.1661804 = sum of:
        0.1661804 = weight(_text_:500 in 4793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1661804 = score(doc=4793,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 4793, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4793)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.490-500

0.039949693 = product of:
  0.079899386 = sum of:
    0.079899386 = product of:
      0.23969816 = sum of:
        0.23969816 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23969816 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4264955 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.03672103 = product of:
  0.07344206 = sum of:
    0.07344206 = product of:
      0.14688411 = sum of:
        0.14688411 = weight(_text_:500 in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14688411 = score(doc=3025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

SR 500

RVK

SR 500

0.03672103 = product of:
  0.07344206 = sum of:
    0.07344206 = product of:
      0.14688411 = sum of:
        0.14688411 = weight(_text_:500 in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14688411 = score(doc=3152,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the citation distributions of the 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking produced by The Centre for Science and Technological Studies. We use a Web of Science data set consisting of 3.6 million articles published in 2003 to 2008 and classified into 5,119 clusters. The main findings are the following. First, the universality claim, according to which all university-citation distributions, appropriately normalized, follow a single functional form, is not supported by the data. Second, the 500 university citation distributions are all highly skewed and very similar. Broadly speaking, university citation distributions appear to behave as if they differ by a relatively constant scale factor over a large, intermediate part of their support. Third, citation-impact differences between universities account for 3.85% of overall citation inequality. This percentage is greatly reduced when university citation distributions are normalized using their mean normalized citation scores (MNCSs) as normalization factors. Finally, regarding practical consequences, we only need a single explanatory model for the type of high skewness characterizing all university citation distributions, and the similarity of university citation distributions goes a long way in explaining the similarity of the university rankings obtained with the MNCS and the Top 10% indicator.

0.036351964 = product of:
  0.07270393 = sum of:
    0.07270393 = product of:
      0.14540786 = sum of:
        0.14540786 = weight(_text_:500 in 5150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14540786 = score(doc=5150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.47280845 = fieldWeight in 5150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article investigates the error rates in shelf-ready cataloged monographs from Ingram Coutts Information Services that were received at The University of Western Ontario. Using quality control reports from a period of two years, over 500 cataloging errors were entered into a database organized by frequency, severity, and other factors. With this information, we analyzed the frequency of errors and their root causes. We found that overall error rates are low, and the quality of shelf-ready cataloging has improved since first implementing the outsourcing program.

0.033291414 = product of:
  0.06658283 = sum of:
    0.06658283 = product of:
      0.19974847 = sum of:
        0.19974847 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19974847 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4264955 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=4360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is a challenging new task related to text mining and natural language processing. Although there are, at present, several studies related to this theme, most of these focus mainly on English texts. The resources available for opinion mining (OM) in other languages are still limited. In this article, we present a new Arabic corpus for the OM task that has been made available to the scientific community for research purposes. The corpus contains 500 movie reviews collected from different web pages and blogs in Arabic, 250 of them considered as positive reviews, and the other 250 as negative opinions. Furthermore, different experiments have been carried out on this corpus, using machine learning algorithms such as support vector machines and Nave Bayes. The results obtained are very promising and we are encouraged to continue this line of research.

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From small research groups to large organizations, there has been tremendous effort in the last few years in publishing data online so that it is widely accessible to a large community. These efforts have been successful across a number of domains and have resulted in a proliferation of online sources. In the field of biology, there were 1.330 major online molecular databases at the beginning of 2011, which is 96 more than a year earlier. In the Linking Open Data (LOD) community project at the W3C, the number of published RDF triples has grown from 500 million in May 2007 to over 28 billion triples in March 2011. Fueling this data publishing explosion are tools for translating relational and semistructured data into RDF. In this chapter, we present LinQuer, a generic and extensible framework for integrating link discovery methods over relational data.

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=1762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.4, S.500-506

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 3703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=3703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 3703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.500-508

0.029376822 = product of:
  0.058753643 = sum of:
    0.058753643 = product of:
      0.11750729 = sum of:
        0.11750729 = weight(_text_:500 in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11750729 = score(doc=4951,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.38208693 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

500

Ddc

500

DDC

500