Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00585803 = product of:
  0.01171606 = sum of:
    0.01171606 = product of:
      0.03514818 = sum of:
        0.03514818 = weight(_text_:12 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03514818 = score(doc=1868,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.26464668 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic databases contain surrogates to a particular subset of the complete set of literature; some databases are very narrow in their scope, while others are multidisciplinary. These databases overlap in their coverage of the literature to a greater or lesser extent. The topic of Fuzzy Set Theory is examined to determine the overlap of coverage in the databases that index this topic. It was found that about 63% of records in the data set are unique to only one database, and the remaining 37% are duplicated in from two to 12 different databases. The overlap distribution is found to conform to a Lotka-type plot. The records with maximum overlap are identified; however, further work is needed to determine the significance of the high level of overlap in these records. The unique records are plotted using a Bradford-type form of data presentation and are found to conform (visually) to a hyperbolic distribution. The extent and causes of intra-database duplication (records duplicated in the one database) are also examined. Finally, the overlap in the top databases in the dataset were examined, and a high correlation was found between overlapping records, and overlapping DIALOG OneSearch categories.

Date

19.10.2003 12:10:52

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1091-1103

0.0047349897 = product of:
  0.009469979 = sum of:
    0.009469979 = product of:
      0.028409937 = sum of:
        0.028409937 = weight(_text_:12 in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028409937 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.21391137 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.1997 12:16:21

0.0033821356 = product of:
  0.0067642713 = sum of:
    0.0067642713 = product of:
      0.020292813 = sum of:
        0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020292813 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 7.2008 17:57:21

0.0033821356 = product of:
  0.0067642713 = sum of:
    0.0067642713 = product of:
      0.020292813 = sum of:
        0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020292813 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.