Search (140 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.14 
    0.13966143 = product of:
  0.27932286 = sum of:
    0.27932286 = sum of:
      0.18234678 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18234678 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.63091993 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.09697609 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09697609 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)
    Abstract
    Arranged according to subjects the bibliography lists 79 references,mostly with terse abstracts.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  2. Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013) 0.12 
    0.119078055 = product of:
  0.23815611 = sum of:
    0.23815611 = sum of:
      0.2038699 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2038699 = score(doc=671,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.70539 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:50:00
  3. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.08 
    0.075275764 = product of:
  0.15055153 = sum of:
    0.15055153 = sum of:
      0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10940806 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041143466 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  4. Rotto, E.; Morgan, R.P.: ¬An exploration of expert based text analysis techniques for assessing industrial relevance in US engineering dissertation abstracts (1997) 0.07 
    0.07135446 = product of:
  0.14270893 = sum of:
    0.14270893 = product of:
      0.28541785 = sum of:
        0.28541785 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28541785 = score(doc=465,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.98754597 = fieldWeight in 465, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Describes exploratory research into the application of computerized text anaylsis techniques to all US engineering doctoral dissertation abstracts dated 1981, 1986 and 1991. Experts categorized abstracts by industrial relevance, and identified appropriate non technology specific word indicators within the abstracts. Word frequency and cluster analysis techniques were also explored for their potential utility in identifying technology related word indicators of industrial relevance. Results suggest that text analysis of engineering dissertation abstracts holds potential utility for identifying industrially relevant university based engineering research, when used in conjunction with expert input and feedback
  5. Whitley, K.M.: Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches (2002) 0.06 
    0.06382137 = product of:
  0.12764274 = sum of:
    0.12764274 = product of:
      0.25528547 = sum of:
        0.25528547 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25528547 = score(doc=1255,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.8832879 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.
    Object
    Chemical abstracts
  6. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.06 
    0.062729806 = product of:
  0.12545961 = sum of:
    0.12545961 = sum of:
      0.09117339 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09117339 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.31545997 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  7. Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013) 0.06 
    0.062729806 = product of:
  0.12545961 = sum of:
    0.12545961 = sum of:
      0.09117339 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09117339 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.31545997 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.034286223 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034286223 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:21:46
  8. Walters, W.H.: Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field (2007) 0.05 
    0.047375083 = product of:
  0.094750166 = sum of:
    0.094750166 = product of:
      0.18950033 = sum of:
        0.18950033 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18950033 = score(doc=928,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.65567124 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper evaluates the content of Google Scholar and seven other databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, GEOBASE, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citation Index) within the multidisciplinary subject area of later-life migration. Each database is evaluated with reference to a set of 155 core articles selected in advance-the most important studies of later-life migration published from 1990 to 2000. Of the eight databases, Google Scholar indexes the greatest number of core articles (93%) and provides the most uniform publisher and date coverage. It covers 27% more core articles than the second-ranked database (SSCI) and 2.4 times as many as the lowest-ranked database (GEOBASE). At the same time, a substantial proportion of the citations provided by Google Scholar are incomplete (32%) or presented without abstracts (33%).
    Object
    Social Sciences Abstracts
  9. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.05 
    0.045128524 = product of:
  0.09025705 = sum of:
    0.09025705 = product of:
      0.1805141 = sum of:
        0.1805141 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1805141 = score(doc=1735,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.6245789 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
    Object
    Chemical Abstracts
  10. Bu, Y.; Li, M.; Gu, W.; Huang, W.-b.: Topic diversity : a discipline scheme-free diversity measurement for journals (2021) 0.05 
    0.045128524 = product of:
  0.09025705 = sum of:
    0.09025705 = product of:
      0.1805141 = sum of:
        0.1805141 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1805141 = score(doc=209,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.6245789 = fieldWeight in 209, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scientometrics has many citation-based measurements for characterizing diversity, but most of these measurements depend on human-designed categories and the granularity of discipline classifications sometimes does not allow in-depth analysis. As such, the current paper proposes a new measurement for quantifying journals' diversity by utilizing the abstracts of scientific publications in journals, namely topic diversity (TD). Specifically, we apply a topic detection method to extract fine-grained topics, rather than disciplines, in journals and adapt certain diversity indicators to calculate TD. Since TD only needs as inputs abstracts of publications rather than citing relationships between publications, this measurement has the potential to be widely used in scientometrics.
  11. Neuhaus, C.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-W.: ¬The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts : a case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor (2009) 0.04 
    0.04077398 = product of:
  0.08154796 = sum of:
    0.08154796 = product of:
      0.16309592 = sum of:
        0.16309592 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16309592 = score(doc=2707,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.564312 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.
    Object
    Chemical Abstracts
  12. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.04 
    0.039479237 = product of:
  0.078958474 = sum of:
    0.078958474 = product of:
      0.15791695 = sum of:
        0.15791695 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15791695 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.54639274 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  13. Chen, L.; Fang, H.: ¬An automatic method for ex-tracting innovative ideas based on the Scopus® database (2019) 0.04 
    0.039479237 = product of:
  0.078958474 = sum of:
    0.078958474 = product of:
      0.15791695 = sum of:
        0.15791695 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15791695 = score(doc=5310,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.54639274 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The novelty of knowledge claims in a research paper can be considered an evaluation criterion for papers to supplement citations. To provide a foundation for research evaluation from the perspective of innovativeness, we propose an automatic approach for extracting innovative ideas from the abstracts of technology and engineering papers. The approach extracts N-grams as candidates based on part-of-speech tagging and determines whether they are novel by checking the Scopus® database to determine whether they had ever been presented previously. Moreover, we discussed the distributions of innovative ideas in different abstract structures. To improve the performance by excluding noisy N-grams, a list of stopwords and a list of research description characteristics were developed. We selected abstracts of articles published from 2011 to 2017 with the topic of semantic analysis as the experimental texts. Excluding noisy N-grams, considering the distribution of innovative ideas in abstracts, and suitably combining N-grams can effectively improve the performance of automatic innovative idea extraction. Unlike co-word and co-citation analysis, innovative-idea extraction aims to identify the differences in a paper from all previously published papers.
  14. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005) 0.04 
    0.03868159 = product of:
  0.07736318 = sum of:
    0.07736318 = product of:
      0.15472636 = sum of:
        0.15472636 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15472636 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.5353533 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.
  15. Elkiss, A.; Shen, S.; Fader, A.; Erkan, G.; States, D.; Radev, D.: Blind men and elephants : what do citation summaries tell us about a research article? (2008) 0.03 
    0.03223466 = product of:
  0.06446932 = sum of:
    0.06446932 = product of:
      0.12893865 = sum of:
        0.12893865 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12893865 = score(doc=1339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.44612777 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims.
  16. Mayr, P.; Umstätter, W.: ¬Eine bibliometrische Zeitschriftenanalyse mit Jol Scientrometrics und NfD bzw. IWP (2008) 0.03 
    0.031910684 = product of:
  0.06382137 = sum of:
    0.06382137 = product of:
      0.12764274 = sum of:
        0.12764274 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12764274 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.44164395 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In der Studie sind 3.889 Datensätze analysiert worden, die im Zeitraum 1976-2004 in der Datenbank Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) im Forschungsbereich der Informetrie nachgewiesen sind und das Wachstum auf diesem Gebiet belegen. Die Studie zeigt anhand einer Bradford-Verteilung (power law) die Kernzeitschriften in diesem Feld und bestätigt auf der Basis dieses LISA-Datensatzes, dass die Gründung einer neuen Zeitschrift, "Journals of Informetrics" (JoI), 2007 etwa zur rechten Zeit erfolgte. Im Verhältnis dazu wird die Entwicklung der Zeitschrift Scientometrics betrachtet und auch die der "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) bzw. "Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis" (IWP).
  17. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.027428979 = product of:
  0.054857958 = sum of:
    0.054857958 = product of:
      0.109715916 = sum of:
        0.109715916 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109715916 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  18. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027428979 = product of:
  0.054857958 = sum of:
    0.054857958 = product of:
      0.109715916 = sum of:
        0.109715916 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109715916 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  19. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.027428979 = product of:
  0.054857958 = sum of:
    0.054857958 = product of:
      0.109715916 = sum of:
        0.109715916 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109715916 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  20. Tsay, M.-y.: Literature growth, journal characteristics, and suthor productivity in subject indexing, 1977 to 2000 (2004) 0.03 
    0.027352015 = product of:
  0.05470403 = sum of:
    0.05470403 = product of:
      0.10940806 = sum of:
        0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940806 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study employed the Perl program, Excel software, and some bibliometric techniques to investigate growth pattern, journal characteristics, and author productivity of the subject indexing literature from 1977 to 2000, based an the subject search of a descriptor field in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database. The literature growth from 1977 to 2000 in subject indexing could be fitted well by the logistic curve. The Bradford plot of journal literature fits the typical Bradford-Zipf S-shaped curve. Twenty core journals making a significant contribution could be identified from the Bradford-Zipf distribution. Four major research topics in the area of subject indexing were identified as: (1) information organization, (2) information processing, (3) information storage and retrieval, and (4) information systems and services. It was also found that a vast majority of authors (76.7%) contributed only one article, which is a much larger percentage than the 60% of original Lotka's data. The 15 most productive authors and the key concepts of their research were identified.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 130
  • d 9
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 137
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications