Search (401 results, page 1 of 21)

0.15950464 = product of:
  0.23925695 = sum of:
    0.07506842 = weight(_text_:index in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07506842 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
    0.16418853 = sum of:
      0.05638911 = weight(_text_:classification in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05638911 = score(doc=1936,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.10779942 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10779942 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.

Object

DDC-22

0.102367505 = product of:
  0.15355125 = sum of:
    0.1213289 = weight(_text_:index in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1213289 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.03222235 = product of:
      0.0644447 = sum of:
        0.0644447 = weight(_text_:classification in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0644447 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Authors describe the background and the work involved in setting up Engine-e, a Web index that uses automatic classification as a mean for the selection of resources in Engineering. Considerations in offering a robot-generated Web index as a successor to a manually indexed quality-controlled subject gateway are also discussed

0.08684497 = product of:
  0.13026746 = sum of:
    0.10616278 = weight(_text_:index in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10616278 = score(doc=1703,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
    0.02410468 = product of:
      0.04820936 = sum of:
        0.04820936 = weight(_text_:22 in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04820936 = score(doc=1703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Es handelt sich um den leicht überarbeiteten Text eines Vortrags bei der VDB-Fortbildungsveranstaltung "Wandel als Konstante: neue Aufgaben und Herausforderungen für sozialwissenschaftliche Bibliotheken" am 22./23. Januar 2015 in Berlin.

Source

https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/3002

0.07566187 = product of:
  0.2269856 = sum of:
    0.2269856 = weight(_text_:index in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2269856 = score(doc=407,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.021885 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.

Content

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.

Object

h-index

0.07443855 = product of:
  0.11165782 = sum of:
    0.09099667 = weight(_text_:index in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099667 = score(doc=3069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
    0.020661155 = product of:
      0.04132231 = sum of:
        0.04132231 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04132231 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Vgl.: https://yis.univie.ac.at/index.php/yis/article/view/1324/1234. Diesem Beitrag liegt folgende Abschlussarbeit zugrunde: Lamparter, Anna: Kompetenzprofil für Information Professionals in Unternehmen. Masterarbeit (M.A.), Hochschule Hannover, 2015. Volltext: https://serwiss.bib.hs-hannover.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/528 Vgl. auch: (geb. Lamparter): Kompetenzprofil von Information Professionals in Unternehmen. In:

Date

28. 7.2016 16:22:54

0.0661154 = product of:
  0.0991731 = sum of:
    0.07506842 = weight(_text_:index in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07506842 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.02410468 = product of:
      0.04820936 = sum of:
        0.04820936 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04820936 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.06394595 = product of:
  0.19183783 = sum of:
    0.19183783 = weight(_text_:index in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19183783 = score(doc=1563,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.86365044 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

Object

h-index

0.06364028 = product of:
  0.095460415 = sum of:
    0.03217218 = weight(_text_:index in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03217218 = score(doc=1752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.14483857 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
    0.063288234 = sum of:
      0.017088482 = weight(_text_:classification in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017088482 = score(doc=1752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
      0.046199754 = weight(_text_:22 in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046199754 = score(doc=1752,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.2595412 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Although the Dewey Decimal Classification is currently available on the web to subscribers as WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey in the OCLC Connexion service and in an XML version to licensees, OCLC does not provide any "web services" based on the DDC. By web services, we mean presentation of the DDC to other machines (not humans) for uses such as searching, browsing, classifying, mapping, harvesting, and alerting. In order to build web-accessible services based on the DDC, several elements have to be considered. One of these elements is the design of an appropriate Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) structure for Dewey. The design goals of mapping the entity model of the DDC into an identifier space can be summarized as follows: * Common locator for Dewey concepts and associated resources for use in web services and web applications * Use-case-driven, but not directly related to and outlasting a specific use case (persistency) * Retraceable path to a concept rather than an abstract identification, reusing a means of identification that is already present in the DDC and available in existing metadata. We have been working closely with our colleagues in the OCLC Office of Research (especially Andy Houghton as well as Eric Childress, Diane Vizine-Goetz, and Stu Weibel) on a preliminary identifier syntax. The basic identifier format we are currently exploring is: http://dewey.info/{aspect}/{object}/{locale}/{type}/{version}/{resource} where * {aspect} is the aspect associated with an {object}-the current value set of aspect contains "concept", "scheme", and "index"; additional ones are under exploration * {object} is a type of {aspect} * {locale} identifies a Dewey translation * {type} identifies a Dewey edition type and contains, at a minimum, the values "edn" for the full edition or "abr" for the abridged edition * {version} identifies a Dewey edition version * {resource} identifies a resource associated with an {object} in the context of {locale}, {type}, and {version}
Some examples of identifiers for concepts follow: <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/en/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the English-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/de/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the German-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 333.7-333.9 concept across all editions and language versions. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/about.skos> This identifier is used to retrieve a SKOS representation of the 333.7-333.9 concept (using the "resource" element). There are several open issues at this preliminary stage of development: Use cases: URIs need to represent the range of statements or questions that could be submitted to a Dewey web service. Therefore, it seems that some general questions have to be answered first: What information does an agent have when coming to a Dewey web service? What kind of questions will such an agent ask? Placement of the {locale} component: It is still an open question if the {locale} component should be placed after the {version} component instead (<http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/edn/22/en>) to emphasize that the most important instantiation of a Dewey class is its edition, not its language version. From a services point of view, however, it could make more sense to keep the current arrangement, because users are more likely to come to the service with a present understanding of the language version they are seeking without knowing the specifics of a certain edition in which they are trying to find topics. Identification of other Dewey entities: The goal is to create a locator that does not answer all, but a lot of questions that could be asked about the DDC. Which entities are missing but should be surfaced for services or user agents? How will those services or agents interact with them? Should some entities be rendered in a different way as presented? For example, (how) should the DDC Summaries be retrievable? Would it be necessary to make the DDC Manual accessible through this identifier structure?"

0.061915398 = product of:
  0.1857462 = sum of:
    0.1857462 = weight(_text_:index in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1857462 = score(doc=854,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.836226 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)

Object

h-index

0.06004731 = product of:
  0.09007096 = sum of:
    0.075830564 = weight(_text_:index in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075830564 = score(doc=2030,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
    0.014240401 = product of:
      0.028480802 = sum of:
        0.028480802 = weight(_text_:classification in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028480802 = score(doc=2030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Cocoda (Colibri Concordance Database for library classification systems) ist ein semi-automatisches, webbasiertes Tool für die Erstellung und Verwaltung von Konkordanzen zwischen bibliothekarischen Klassifikationssystemen. Das Tool wird im Rahmen des Teilprojektes "coli-conc" (Colibri-Konkordanzerstellung) des VZG-Projektes Colibri/DDC als eine Open-Source-Software an der Verbundzentrale des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes (VZG) entwickelt. Im Fokus des Projektes "coli-conc" steht zunächst die Konkordanzbildung zwischen der Dewey Dezimal Klassifikation (DDC) und der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK). Die inhärenten strukturellen und kulturellen Unterschiede von solch fein gegliederten bibliothekarischen Klassifikationssystemen machen den Konkordanzerstellungsprozess bei rein intellektuellem Ansatz aufwendig und zeitraubend. Um diesen zu vereinfachen und zu beschleunigen, werden die intellektuellen Schritte, die im Teilprojekt "coli-conc" eingesetzt werden, z. T. vom Konkordanztool "Cocoda" automatisch durchgeführt. Die von Cocoda erzeugten Konkordanz-Vorschläge stammen sowohl aus der automatischen Analyse der vergebenen Notationen in den Titeldatensätzen verschiedener Datenbanken als auch aus der vergleichenden Analyse der Begriffswelt der Klassifikationssysteme. Ferner soll "Cocoda" als eine Plattform für die Speicherung, Bereitstellung und Analyse von Konkordanzen dienen, um die Nutzungseffizienz der Konkordanzen zu erhöhen. In dieser Präsentation wird zuerst das Konkordanzprojekt "coli-conc", das die Basis des Konkordanztools "Cocoda" bildet, vorgestellt. Danach werden Algorithmus, Benutzeroberfläche und technische Details des Tools dargelegt. Anhand von Beispielen wird der Konkordanzerstellungsprozess mit Cocoda demonstriert.

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1676

0.05719499 = product of:
  0.17158496 = sum of:
    0.17158496 = weight(_text_:index in 3134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17158496 = score(doc=3134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 3134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3134)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.054288562 = product of:
  0.08143284 = sum of:
    0.06434436 = weight(_text_:index in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06434436 = score(doc=1668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
    0.017088482 = product of:
      0.034176964 = sum of:
        0.034176964 = weight(_text_:classification in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034176964 = score(doc=1668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This working paper describes the creation of a test database to carry out the automatic classification tasks of the DESIRE II work package D3.6a on. It is an improved version of NetLab's existing "All" Engineering database created after a comparative study of the outcome of two different approaches to collecting the documents. These two methods were selected from seven different general methodologies to build robot-generated subject indices, presented in this paper. We found a surprisingly low overlap between the Engineering link collections we used as seed pages for the robot and subsequently an even more surprisingly low overlap between the resources collected by the two different approaches. That inspite of using basically the same services to start the harvesting process from. A intellectual evaluation of the contents of both databases showed almost exactly the same percentage of relevant documents (77%), indicating that the main difference between those aproaches was the coverage of the resulting database.

0.054288562 = product of:
  0.08143284 = sum of:
    0.06434436 = weight(_text_:index in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06434436 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
    0.017088482 = product of:
      0.034176964 = sum of:
        0.034176964 = weight(_text_:classification in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034176964 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The emerging network environment brings access to an increasing population of heterogeneous repositories. Inevitably, these, have quite diverse metadata vocabularies (categorization codes, classification numbers, index and thesaurus terms). So, necessarily, the number of metadata vocabularies that are accessible but unfamiliar for any individual searcher is increasing steeply. When an unfamiliar metadata vocabulary is encountered, how is a searcher to know which codes or terms will lead to what is wanted? This paper reports work at the University of California, Berkeley, on the design and development of English language indexes to metadata vocabularies. Further details and the current status of the work can be found at the project website http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/metadata/

0.050045617 = product of:
  0.15013684 = sum of:
    0.15013684 = weight(_text_:index in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15013684 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.050045617 = product of:
  0.15013684 = sum of:
    0.15013684 = weight(_text_:index in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15013684 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.050045617 = product of:
  0.15013684 = sum of:
    0.15013684 = weight(_text_:index in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15013684 = score(doc=855,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

Object

h-index

0.04953232 = product of:
  0.14859696 = sum of:
    0.14859696 = weight(_text_:index in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14859696 = score(doc=3064,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Im Folgenden soll aufgezeigt werden, wie derzeit das Literaturverwaltungsprogramm Zotero innerhalb des Index Theologicus genutzt wird, um unselbstständige Literatur in einem bibliothekarischen Katalogisierungssystem zu erfassen. Die modulare und flexible Architektur der Open Source Software erlaubt es, die bereits kollaborativ zusammengetragene Programmierarbeit zur Datenextraktion mitzunutzen. Das vorgestellte semiautomatische Verfahren bringt auch bei der Verknüpfung von Normdaten erhebliche Vorteile für die Medienbearbeitung.

Object

Index Theologicus

0.04917285 = product of:
  0.07375927 = sum of:
    0.0536203 = weight(_text_:index in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0536203 = score(doc=4835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4835)
    0.020138968 = product of:
      0.040277936 = sum of:
        0.040277936 = weight(_text_:classification in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040277936 = score(doc=4835,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4835, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In the early years of the 20th century, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927), a special librarian and indexer of technical literature, developed a method of knowledge organization (KO) known as systematic indexing. Certain elements of the method-its stipulation that all indexing terms be divided into fundamental categories "concretes", "countries", and "processes", which are then to be synthesized into indexing "statements" formulated according to strict rules of citation order-have long been recognized as precursors to key principles of the theory of faceted classification. However, other, less well-known elements of the method may prove no less interesting to practitioners of KO. In particular, two aspects of systematic indexing seem to prefigure current trends in KO: (1) a perspectivist outlook that rejects universal classifications in favor of information organization systems customized to reflect local needs and (2) the incorporation of index terms extracted from source documents into a polyhierarchical taxonomical structure. Kaiser's perspectivism anticipates postmodern theories of KO, while his principled use of polyhierarchy to organize terms derived from the language of source documents provides a potentially fruitful model that can inform current discussions about harvesting natural-language terms, such as tags, and incorporating them into a flexibly structured controlled vocabulary.

Source

Proceedings 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Ed.: Lussky, Joan

0.04803785 = product of:
  0.07205677 = sum of:
    0.06066445 = weight(_text_:index in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06066445 = score(doc=4336,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
    0.0113923205 = product of:
      0.022784641 = sum of:
        0.022784641 = weight(_text_:classification in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022784641 = score(doc=4336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.

0.04795946 = product of:
  0.14387839 = sum of:
    0.14387839 = weight(_text_:index in 3072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14387839 = score(doc=3072,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.64773786 = fieldWeight in 3072, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3072)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present an analysis of the Yahoo Buzz Index over a period of 45 weeks. Our key findings are that: (1) It is most common for a search term to show up on the index for one week, followed by two weeks, three weeks, etc. Only two terms persist for all 45 weeks studied - Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez. Search term longevity follows a power-law distribution or a winner-take-all structure; (2) Most search terms focus on entertainment. Search terms related to serious topics are found less often. The Buzz Index does not necessarily follow the "news cycle"; and, (3) We provide two ways to determine "star power" of various search terms - one that emphasizes staying power on the Index and another that emphasizes rank. In general, the methods lead to dramatically different results. Britney Spears performs well in both methods. We conclude that the data available on the Index is symptomatic of a celebrity-crazed, entertainment-centered culture.