Search (1663 results, page 1 of 84)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Xu, F.; Liu, W.B.; Mingers, J.: New journal classification methods based on the global h-index (2015) 0.15 
    0.14787437 = product of:
  0.22181155 = sum of:
    0.19333075 = weight(_text_:index in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19333075 = score(doc=2684,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8703715 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
    0.028480802 = product of:
      0.056961603 = sum of:
        0.056961603 = weight(_text_:classification in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056961603 = score(doc=2684,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In this work we develop new journal classification methods based on the h-index. The introduction of the h-index for research evaluation has attracted much attention in the bibliometric study and research quality evaluation. The main purpose of using an h-index is to compare the index for different research units (e.g. researchers, journals, etc.) to differentiate their research performance. However the h-index is defined by only comparing citations counts of one's own publications, it is doubtful that the h index alone should be used for reliable comparisons among different research units, like researchers or journals. In this paper we propose a new global h-index (Gh-index), where the publications in the core are selected in comparison with all the publications of the units to be evaluated. Furthermore, we introduce some variants of the Gh-index to address the issue of discrimination power. We show that together with the original h-index, they can be used to evaluate and classify academic journals with some distinct advantages, in particular that they can produce an automatic classification into a number of categories without arbitrary cut-off points. We then carry out an empirical study for classification of operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals using this index, and compare it with other well-known journal ranking results such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Journal Quality Guide and the Committee of Professors in OR (COPIOR) ranking lists.
    Object
    h-index
  2. Dewey, M.: Dewey Decimal Classification and relative index (2011) 0.13 
    0.12667331 = product of:
  0.19000997 = sum of:
    0.15013684 = weight(_text_:index in 3079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15013684 = score(doc=3079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 3079, 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=3079)
    0.039873123 = product of:
      0.07974625 = sum of:
        0.07974625 = weight(_text_:classification in 3079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07974625 = score(doc=3079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  3. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.12 
    0.11871903 = product of:
  0.17807853 = sum of:
    0.1608609 = weight(_text_:index in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1608609 = score(doc=4147,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.72419286 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
    Object
    h-index
  4. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.11 
    0.10639735 = product of:
  0.15959603 = sum of:
    0.075830564 = weight(_text_:index in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075830564 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
    0.08376546 = sum of:
      0.049330197 = weight(_text_:classification in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049330197 = score(doc=2282,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
      0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03443526 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  5. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.10 
    0.09904002 = product of:
  0.14856002 = sum of:
    0.13134238 = weight(_text_:index in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13134238 = score(doc=1418,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.591301 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  6. Panzer, M.: Dewey: how to make it work for you (2013) 0.10 
    0.09667812 = product of:
  0.14501718 = sum of:
    0.0536203 = weight(_text_:index in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0536203 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
    0.09139687 = sum of:
      0.056961603 = weight(_text_:classification in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056961603 = score(doc=5797,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5797, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5797)
      0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03443526 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The article discusses various aspects of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system of classifying library books in 2013. Background is presented on some librarians' desire to stop using DDC and adopt a genre-based system of classification. It says librarians can use the DDC to deal with problems and issues related to library book classification. It highlights the benefits of using captions and relative index terms and semantic relationships in DDC.
    Content
    "As knowledge brokers, we are living in interesting times for libraries and librarians. We wonder sometimes if our traditional tools like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system can cope with the onslaught of information. The categories provided don't always seem adequate for the knowledge-discovery habits of today's patrons. They have grown accustomed to new ways for their information needs to be met, from the fire-and-forget style of a hard-to-control classic Google search to the pervasive, always-on style of Google Now, anticipating users' information needs without their having even asked a verbal question. Contrariwise, I believe that we, as librarians, could be making better use of our tools. Many (like the DDC) are a reflection of the same social and epistemological forces that brought about modernity at the turn of the last century. We as librarians are in the unique position of providing services that are as ground-breaking as these tools. As we see the need to provide unique and cutting-edge knowledge discovery to our users, I argue in this article that the DDC can play a key role in fulfilling this purpose."
    Source
    Knowledge quest. 42(2013) no.2, S.22-29
  7. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.09 
    0.09349018 = product of:
  0.28047055 = sum of:
    0.28047055 = weight(_text_:index in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28047055 = score(doc=3418,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.2626734 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
    Object
    h-index
    g-index
    e-index
  8. Stumpf, G.: "Kerngeschäft" Sacherschließung in neuer Sicht : was gezielte intellektuelle Arbeit und maschinelle Verfahren gemeinsam bewirken können (2015) 0.09 
    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
  9. Hubain, R.; Wilde, M. De; Hooland, S. van: Automated SKOS vocabulary design for the biopharmaceutical industry (2016) 0.08 
    0.084066235 = product of:
  0.12609935 = sum of:
    0.10616278 = weight(_text_:index in 5132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10616278 = score(doc=5132,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 5132, 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=5132)
    0.019936562 = product of:
      0.039873123 = sum of:
        0.039873123 = weight(_text_:classification in 5132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039873123 = score(doc=5132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ensuring quick and consistent access to large collections of unstructured documents is one of the biggest challenges facing knowledge-intensive organizations. Designing specific vocabularies to index and retrieve documents is often deemed too expensive, full-text search being preferred despite its known limitations. However, the process of creating controlled vocabularies can be partly automated thanks to natural language processing and machine learning techniques. With a case study from the biopharmaceutical industry, we demonstrate how small organizations can use an automated workflow in order to create a controlled vocabulary to index unstructured documents in a semantically meaningful way.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.7, S.403-417
  10. Wu, S.; Fan, Y.: Music literature indexing : comparing users' free-text queries and controlled vocabularies (2018) 0.08 
    0.084066235 = product of:
  0.12609935 = sum of:
    0.10616278 = weight(_text_:index in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10616278 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
    0.019936562 = product of:
      0.039873123 = sum of:
        0.039873123 = weight(_text_:classification in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039873123 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study examined the characteristics of users' free-text queries submitted to RILM Abstracts of Music Literature (a music literature database), and compared those queries with the controlled vocabularies used by RILM. Search-log analysis identified 11 categories of user-created search terms, and mapped each user-created search term to RILM's index terms, assessing whether it was a perfect match, a partial match, or no match. Only 30.04% of the user-created search terms did not match RILM's index terms. Most of the partial-matching and non-matching user-created search terms were personal names, work titles, and topical terms. Suggestions are offered to enhance RILM's controlled vocabularies.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.4, S.330-353
  11. Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013) 0.08 
    0.08299127 = product of:
  0.24897382 = sum of:
    0.24897382 = weight(_text_:index in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24897382 = score(doc=1111,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.1208756 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
    Object
    h-index
    g-index
  12. Gorraiz, J.; Purnell, P.J.; Glänzel, W.: Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index (2013) 0.08 
    0.080987334 = product of:
  0.121481 = sum of:
    0.1072406 = weight(_text_:index in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1072406 = score(doc=966,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
    0.014240401 = product of:
      0.028480802 = sum of:
        0.028480802 = weight(_text_:classification in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028480802 = score(doc=966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 966, 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=966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article offers important background information about a new product, the Book Citation Index (BKCI), launched in 2011 by Thomson Reuters. Information is illustrated by some new facts concerning The BKCI's use in bibliometrics, coverage analysis, and a series of idiosyncrasies worthy of further discussion. The BKCI was launched primarily to assist researchers identify useful and relevant research that was previously invisible to them, owing to the lack of significant book content in citation indexes such as the Web of Science. So far, the content of 33,000 books has been added to the desktops of the global research community, the majority in the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields. Initial analyses of the data from The BKCI have indicated that The BKCI, in its current version, should not be used for bibliometric or evaluative purposes. The most significant limitations to this potential application are the high share of publications without address information, the inflation of publication counts, the lack of cumulative citation counts from different hierarchical levels, and inconsistency in citation counts between the cited reference search and the book citation index. However, The BKCI is a first step toward creating a reliable and necessary citation data source for monographs - a very challenging issue, because, unlike journals and conference proceedings, books have specific requirements, and several problems emerge not only in the context of subject classification, but also in their role as cited publications and in citing publications.
    Object
    Book Citation Index
  13. Crispo, E.: ¬A new index to use in conjunction with the h-index to account for an author's relative contribution to publications with high impact (2015) 0.08 
    0.07506842 = product of:
  0.22520526 = sum of:
    0.22520526 = weight(_text_:index in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22520526 = score(doc=2264,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.01387 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.
    Object
    h-index
  14. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.07 
    0.07443855 = product of:
  0.11165782 = sum of:
    0.09099667 = weight(_text_:index in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099667 = score(doc=1350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
    0.020661155 = product of:
      0.04132231 = sum of:
        0.04132231 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04132231 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  15. Jäger-Dengler-Harles, I.: Informationsvisualisierung und Retrieval im Fokus der Infromationspraxis (2013) 0.07 
    0.07443855 = product of:
  0.11165782 = sum of:
    0.09099667 = weight(_text_:index in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099667 = score(doc=1709,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
    0.020661155 = product of:
      0.04132231 = sum of:
        0.04132231 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04132231 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    4. 2.2015 9:22:39
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://publiscologne.fh-koeln.de/frontdoor/index/index/id/334/docId/334.
  16. Knoll, A.: Kompetenzprofil von Information Professionals in Unternehmen (2016) 0.07 
    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
  17. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.07 
    0.07339382 = product of:
  0.110090725 = sum of:
    0.0928731 = weight(_text_:index in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0928731 = score(doc=4635,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
  18. Vaughan, L.; Chen, Y.: Data mining from web search queries : a comparison of Google trends and Baidu index (2015) 0.07 
    0.07339382 = product of:
  0.110090725 = sum of:
    0.0928731 = weight(_text_:index in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0928731 = score(doc=1605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22
  19. Batorowska, H.; Kaminska-Czubala, B.: Information retrieval support : visualisation of the information space of a document (2014) 0.07 
    0.07327241 = product of:
  0.10990861 = sum of:
    0.04289624 = weight(_text_:index in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04289624 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 1444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1444)
    0.06701237 = sum of:
      0.03946416 = weight(_text_:classification in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03946416 = score(doc=1444,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 1444, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1444)
      0.027548207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027548207 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05083213 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1444)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Acquiring knowledge in any field involves information retrieval, i.e. searching the available documents to identify answers to the queries concerning the selected objects. Knowing the keywords which are names of the objects will enable situating the user's query in the information space organized as a thesaurus or faceted classification. Objectives: Identification the areas in the information space which correspond to gaps in the user's personal knowledge or in the domain knowledge might become useful in theory or practice. The aim of this paper is to present a realistic information-space model of a self-authored full-text document on information culture, indexed by the author of this article. Methodology: Having established the relations between the terms, particular modules (sets of terms connected by relations used in facet classification) are situated on a plain, similarly to a communication map. Conclusions drawn from the "journey" on the map, which is a visualization of the knowledge contained in the analysed document, are the crucial part of this paper. Results: The direct result of the research is the created model of information space visualization of a given document (book, article, website). The proposed procedure can practically be used as a new form of representation in order to map the contents of academic books and articles, beside the traditional index form, especially as an e-book auxiliary tool. In teaching, visualization of the information space of a document can be used to help students understand the issues of: classification, categorization and representation of new knowledge emerging in human mind.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  20. O'Neill, E.T.; Bennett, R.; Kammerer, K.: Using authorities to improve subject searches (2014) 0.07 
    0.071409 = product of:
  0.107113495 = sum of:
    0.0928731 = weight(_text_:index in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0928731 = score(doc=1970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
    0.014240401 = product of:
      0.028480802 = sum of:
        0.028480802 = weight(_text_:classification in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028480802 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve searching by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users' searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST prototype complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.6-19

Authors

Languages

  • e 1428
  • d 220
  • f 2
  • a 1
  • es 1
  • hu 1
  • i 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 1479
  • el 131
  • m 98
  • s 31
  • x 19
  • r 8
  • b 5
  • ag 2
  • i 2
  • n 2
  • p 2
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications