Search (479 results, page 1 of 24)

0.089730985 = product of:
  0.17946197 = sum of:
    0.17946197 = product of:
      0.35892394 = sum of:
        0.35892394 = weight(_text_:plus in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35892394 = score(doc=2857,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            1.157144 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliometric analysis based on literature in the Web of Science (WOS) has become an increasingly popular method for visualizing the structure of scientific fields. Keywords Plus and Author Keywords are commonly selected as units of analysis, despite the limited research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Keywords Plus. This study was conceived to evaluate the efficacy of Keywords Plus as a parameter for capturing the content and scientific concepts presented in articles. Using scientific papers about patient adherence that were retrieved from WOS, a comparative assessment of Keywords Plus and Author Keywords was performed at the scientific field level and the document level, respectively. Our search yielded more Keywords Plus terms than Author Keywords, and the Keywords Plus terms were more broadly descriptive. Keywords Plus is as effective as Author Keywords in terms of bibliometric analysis investigating the knowledge structure of scientific fields, but it is less comprehensive in representing an article's content.

0.0838783 = product of:
  0.1677566 = sum of:
    0.1677566 = sum of:
      0.12689878 = weight(_text_:plus in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12689878 = score(doc=1345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05026075 = queryNorm
          0.40911216 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
      0.04085782 = weight(_text_:22 in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04085782 = score(doc=1345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17600457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05026075 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1345, 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=1345)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evaluating collections of XML documents without paying attention to the schema they were written in may give interesting insights into the expected characteristics of a markup language, as well as any regularity that may span vocabularies and languages, and that are more fundamental and frequent than plain content models. In this paper we explore the idea of structural patterns in XML vocabularies, by examining the characteristics of elements as they are used, rather than as they are defined. We introduce from the ground up a formal theory of 8 plus 3 structural patterns for XML elements, and verify their identifiability in a number of different XML vocabularies. The results allowed the creation of visualization and content extraction tools that are completely independent of the schema and without any previous knowledge of the semantics and organization of the XML vocabulary of the documents.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:08:49

0.0838783 = product of:
  0.1677566 = sum of:
    0.1677566 = sum of:
      0.12689878 = weight(_text_:plus in 1848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12689878 = score(doc=1848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05026075 = queryNorm
          0.40911216 = fieldWeight in 1848, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1848)
      0.04085782 = weight(_text_:22 in 1848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04085782 = score(doc=1848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17600457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05026075 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1848, 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=1848)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of entity linking is to associate references to an entity that is found in unstructured natural language content to an authoritative inventory of known entities. This article describes the construction of 6 test collections for cross-language person-entity linking that together span 22 languages. Fully automated components were used together with 2 crowdsourced validation stages to affordably generate ground-truth annotations with an accuracy comparable to that of a completely manual process. The resulting test collections each contain between 642 (Arabic) and 2,361 (Romanian) person references in non-English texts for which the correct resolution in English Wikipedia is known, plus a similar number of references for which no correct resolution into English Wikipedia is believed to exist. Fully automated cross-language person-name linking experiments with 20 non-English languages yielded a resolution accuracy of between 0.84 (Serbian) and 0.98 (Romanian), which compares favorably with previously reported cross-language entity linking results for Spanish.

0.06652284 = product of:
  0.13304567 = sum of:
    0.13304567 = product of:
      0.399137 = sum of:
        0.399137 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.399137 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4261112 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = 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

0.0399137 = product of:
  0.0798274 = sum of:
    0.0798274 = product of:
      0.23948218 = sum of:
        0.23948218 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23948218 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4261112 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = 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.

0.03326142 = product of:
  0.06652284 = sum of:
    0.06652284 = product of:
      0.1995685 = sum of:
        0.1995685 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1995685 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4261112 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = 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.

0.031724695 = product of:
  0.06344939 = sum of:
    0.06344939 = product of:
      0.12689878 = sum of:
        0.12689878 = weight(_text_:plus in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12689878 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.40911216 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02660913 = product of:
  0.05321826 = sum of:
    0.05321826 = product of:
      0.15965478 = sum of:
        0.15965478 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15965478 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4261112 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=3453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we describe the results of an experiment designed to understand the effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging. The participants in the experiment were asked to tag 12 preselected images of Jewish cultural heritage. The users were partitioned into three groups: the first group saw only the images with no additional information whatsoever, the second group saw the images plus a short, descriptive title, and the third group saw the images, the titles, and the URL of the page in which the image appeared. In the first stage of the experiment, each user tagged the images without seeing the tags provided by the other users. In the second stage, the users saw the tags assigned by others and were encouraged to interact. Results show that after the social interaction phase, the tag sets converged and the popular tags became even more popular. Although in all cases the total number of assigned tags increased after the social interaction phase, the number of distinct tags decreased in most cases. When viewing the image only, in some cases the users were not able to correctly identify what they saw in some of the pictures, but they overcame the initial difficulties after interaction. We conclude from this experiment that social interaction may lead to convergence in tagging and that the wisdom of the crowds helps overcome the difficulties due to the lack of information.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 4755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=4755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 4755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A theory-driven, older adult-oriented e-health literacy intervention was developed and tested to generate scientific knowledge about the potential impact of learning methods and information presentation channels. The experimental design was a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design with learning method (collaborative, individualistic) and presentation channel (visual only, visual plus auditory) as the between-subjects variables and time of measurement (pre-, post-) as the within-subjects variable. One hundred twenty-four older adults (age: M = 68.15, SD = 9.00) participated during September 2010-February 2011. No significant interaction or main effect of learning method and information presentation channel was found, suggesting the advantages of collaborative learning over individualistic learning or the redundancy effect might not be easily generalized to older adults in similar experimental conditions. Time of measurement had significant main effects on e-health literacy efficacy, perceived usefulness of e-health literacy skills, and e-health literacy skills (p <.001 in all three cases; power = 1.00 or .98). These findings suggest that the intervention, regardless of its specific combination of learning method and information presentation channel, was effective in improving e-health literacy from pre- to postintervention. The findings contribute to the collaborative learning, multimedia learning, and e-health literacy literatures.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Health research shows that knowing about health risks may not translate into behavior change. However, such research typically operationalizes health information acquisition with knowledge tests. Information scientists who investigate socially embedded information behaviors could help improve understanding of potential associations between information behavior-as opposed to knowledge-and health behavior formation, thus providing new opportunities to investigate the effects of health information. We examine the associations between information behavior and HIV testing intentions among young men who have sex with men (YMSM), a group with high rates of unrecognized HIV infection. We used the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict intentions to seek HIV testing in an online sample of 163 YMSM. Multiple regression and recursive path analysis were used to test two models: (a) the basic TPB model and (b) an adapted model that added the direct effects of three information behaviors (information exposure, use of information to make HIV-testing decisions, prior experience obtaining an HIV test) plus self-rated HIV knowledge. As hypothesized, our adapted model improved predictions, explaining more than twice as much variance as the original TPB model. The results suggest that information behaviors may be more important predictors of health behavior intentions than previously acknowledged.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 2042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=2042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 2042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Characterization of waste recycling (WR) research has to start by defining the scope of this scientific area. Previous works and expert assessment recommend the adoption of an inclusive definition, with the aim of including all relevant uses of waste within this study. An ad-hoc designed "capture" strategy has been used to retrieve WR-related peer-reviewed journal papers from selected databases, and the information contained in their author keyword field has been thoroughly cleaned. Author keyword co-occurrence data have been used for building a similarity measure between keywords, plus cluster analysis for revealing the main WR research being addressed by the scientific community. Results have been further analyzed using advanced visualization tools to determine which clusters formed strongly-linked research areas that could set the main cognitive divisions of WR science. This process has been repeated with 2002 and 2012 data, and science maps reflecting the main research areas and clusters have been generated. Results show that WR mainly deals with the recovery of basic, widely used raw materials like water and fertile soil. Energy generation and waste management are other relevant fields that show an interesting evolution, revealing signs of growth in research, together with the emergence of sub-areas reflecting consolidating research specialties.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) in aggregated metadata collections facilitates the implementation of search mechanisms operating on the same term or keyphrase space, thus preparing the ground for improved browsing, more accurate retrieval and better user profiling. Automatic thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction appears to be an inexpensive tool to obtain this information, but the studies on its effectiveness are scattered and do not consider the practical applicability of these techniques compared to the quality obtained by involving human experts. This paper presents an evaluation of keyphrase extraction using the KEA software and the AGROVOC vocabulary on a sample of a large collection of metadata in the field of agriculture from the AGRIS database. This effort includes a double evaluation, the classical automatic evaluation based on precision and recall measures, plus a blind evaluation aimed to contrast the quality of the keyphrases extracted against expert-provided samples and against the keyphrases originally recorded in the metadata. Results show not only that KEA outperforms humans in matching the original keyphrases, but also that the quality of the keyphrases extracted was similar to those provided by humans.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 2387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=2387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 2387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper is exploring research methods used in Library and Information Science (LIS) during the last four decades. Our goal is to compile a annotated bibliography of seminal works of the discipline used in different countries and social contexts. Design/methodology/approach When comparing areas and types of research, different publication patterns are taken into account. As we can see, data indicators and types of studies carried out on scientific activity contribute very little when evaluating the real response potential to identified problems. Therefore, among other things, LIS needs new methodological developments, which should combine qualitative and quantitative approaches and allow a better understanding of the nature and characteristics of science in different countries. Findings The conclusion is that LIS emerges strictly linked to descriptive methodologies, channeled to meet the challenges of professional practice through empirical strategies of a professional nature, which manifests itself the preponderance of a professional paradigm that turns out to be an indicator of poor scientific discipline development. Research limitations/implications This undoubtedly reflects the reality of Anglo-Saxon countries, reproduced in most of the recognized journals of the field; this issue, plus, the chosen instruments for data collection certainly slant the results. Originality/value The development of taxonomies in the discipline can't be left aside from the accepted by the rest of the scientific community, at least if LIS desires to be integrated and recognized as a scientific discipline.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 2787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=2787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 2787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of two of Foucault's classic early works, The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Order of Things, by library, and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach - The study involved conducting extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examining each citing article and each individual citation to evaluate the nature and depth of each use. Findings - Contrary to initial expectations, the works in question are relatively little used by LIS scholars in journal articles, and where they are used, such use is often only vague, brief, or in passing. In short, works traditionally seen as central and foundational to discourse analysis appear relatively little in discussions of discourse. Research limitations/implications - The study was limited to a certain batch of LIS journal articles that are electronically available in full text at UCLA, where the study was conducted. The results potentially could change by focussing on a fuller or different collection of journals or on non-journal literature. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques could reveal different relative performance among journals. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence that are not visible in the journal literature. Originality/value - This study's intensive, in-depth study of quality as well as quantity of citations challenges some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis and the sociology of citation practices, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship.

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=3016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the "total cost of publication" (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007-2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing ("Gold" OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, "hybrid" subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large "traditional" commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).

0.026437245 = product of:
  0.05287449 = sum of:
    0.05287449 = product of:
      0.10574898 = sum of:
        0.10574898 = weight(_text_:plus in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10574898 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3101809 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.3409268 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Text reuse is becoming a serious issue in many fields and research shows that it is much harder to detect when it occurs across languages. The recent rise in multi-lingual content on the Web has increased cross-language text reuse to an unprecedented scale. Although researchers have proposed methods to detect it, one major drawback is the unavailability of large-scale gold standard evaluation resources built on real cases. To overcome this problem, we propose a cross-language sentence/passage level text reuse corpus for the English-Urdu language pair. The Cross-Language English-Urdu Corpus (CLEU) has source text in English whereas the derived text is in Urdu. It contains in total 3,235 sentence/passage pairs manually tagged into three categories that is near copy, paraphrased copy, and independently written. Further, as a second contribution, we evaluate the Translation plus Mono-lingual Analysis method using three sets of experiments on the proposed dataset to highlight its usefulness. Evaluation results (f1=0.732 binary, f1=0.552 ternary classification) indicate that it is harder to detect cross-language real cases of text reuse, especially when the language pairs have unrelated scripts. The corpus is a useful benchmark resource for the future development and assessment of cross-language text reuse detection systems for the English-Urdu language pair.

0.023833731 = product of:
  0.047667462 = sum of:
    0.047667462 = product of:
      0.095334925 = sum of:
        0.095334925 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095334925 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17600457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.023833731 = product of:
  0.047667462 = sum of:
    0.047667462 = product of:
      0.095334925 = sum of:
        0.095334925 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095334925 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17600457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05026075 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22