Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01
    0.012004493 = product of:
      0.04801797 = sum of:
        0.04801797 = product of:
          0.09603594 = sum of:
            0.09603594 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09603594 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = 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
  2. Momeni, F.; Mayr, P.: Analyzing the research output presented at European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems workshops (2000-2015) (2016) 0.01
    0.010770457 = product of:
      0.043081827 = sum of:
        0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043081827 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]
  3. Metrics in research : for better or worse? (2016) 0.01
    0.0086163655 = product of:
      0.034465462 = sum of:
        0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034465462 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    If you are an academic researcher but did not earn (yet) your Nobel prize or your retirement, it is unlikely you never heard about research metrics. These metrics aim at quantifying various aspects of the research process, at the level of individual researchers (e.g. h-index, altmetrics), scientific journals (e.g. impact factors) or entire universities/ countries (e.g. rankings). Although such "measurements" have existed in a simple form for a long time, their widespread calculation was enabled by the advent of the digital era (large amount of data available worldwide in a computer-compatible format). And in this new era, what becomes technically possible will be done, and what is done and appears to simplify our lives will be used. As a result, a rapidly growing number of statistics-based numerical indices are nowadays fed into decisionmaking processes. This is true in nearly all aspects of society (politics, economy, education and private life), and in particular in research, where metrics play an increasingly important role in determining positions, funding, awards, research programs, career choices, reputations, etc.
  4. Braun, S.: Manifold: a custom analytics platform to visualize research impact (2015) 0.01
    0.0073997467 = product of:
      0.029598987 = sum of:
        0.029598987 = product of:
          0.059197973 = sum of:
            0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059197973 = score(doc=2906,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2906, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2906)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The use of research impact metrics and analytics has become an integral component to many aspects of institutional assessment. Many platforms currently exist to provide such analytics, both proprietary and open source; however, the functionality of these systems may not always overlap to serve uniquely specific needs. In this paper, I describe a novel web-based platform, named Manifold, that I built to serve custom research impact assessment needs in the University of Minnesota Medical School. Built on a standard LAMP architecture, Manifold automatically pulls publication data for faculty from Scopus through APIs, calculates impact metrics through automated analytics, and dynamically generates report-like profiles that visualize those metrics. Work on this project has resulted in many lessons learned about challenges to sustainability and scalability in developing a system of such magnitude.