Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040659726 = product of:
  0.12197917 = sum of:
    0.12197917 = weight(_text_:book in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12197917 = score(doc=2846,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5452614 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.029093731 = product of:
  0.08728119 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.023786029 = product of:
  0.071358085 = sum of:
    0.071358085 = product of:
      0.14271617 = sum of:
        0.14271617 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14271617 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

0.020572376 = product of:
  0.061717123 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=2095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

0.014546866 = product of:
  0.043640595 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.00901901 = product of:
  0.027057027 = sum of:
    0.027057027 = product of:
      0.054114055 = sum of:
        0.054114055 = weight(_text_:search in 7262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054114055 = score(doc=7262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 7262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers practical ways of performing interdisciplinary searches, particularly onlines searches, for subjects with the aim of retrieving literature outside the main discipline of the search topic. Discusses the use of bibliographic markers of various types and demonstrates DIALOG's RANK command as a means of revealing interdisciplinarity in any field. Considers retrieval techniques for searchers interested in synthesizing work from their own discipline (in the example, library and information science) with work from another disciplines. Discusses creativity, the connection of hitherto unconnected literatures, the retrieval and assessment of syntheses, and the nature of library browsing

0.005636881 = product of:
  0.016910642 = sum of:
    0.016910642 = product of:
      0.033821285 = sum of:
        0.033821285 = weight(_text_:search in 437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033821285 = score(doc=437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When bibliometric data are converted to term frequency (tf) and inverse document frequency (idf) values, plotted as pennant diagrams, and interpreted according to Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (RT), the results evoke major variables of information science (IS). These include topicality, in the sense of intercohesion and intercoherence among texts; cognitive effects of texts in response to people's questions; people's levels of expertise as a precondition for cognitive effects; processing effort as textual or other messages are received; specificity of terms as it affects processing effort; relevance, defined in RT as the effects/effort ratio; and authority of texts and their authors. While such concerns figure automatically in dialogues between people, they become problematic when people create or use or judge literature-based information systems. The difficulty of achieving worthwhile cognitive effects and acceptable processing effort in human-system dialogues explains why relevance is the central concern of IS. Moreover, since relevant communication with both systems and unfamiliar people is uncertain, speakers tend to seek cognitive effects that cost them the least effort. Yet hearers need greater effort, often greater specificity, from speakers if their responses are to be highly relevant in their turn. This theme of mismatch manifests itself in vague reference questions, underdeveloped online searches, uncreative judging in retrieval evaluation trials, and perfunctory indexing. Another effect of least effort is a bias toward topical relevance over other kinds. RT can explain these outcomes as well as more adaptive ones. Pennant diagrams, applied here to a literature search and a Bradford-style journal analysis, can model them. Given RT and the right context, bibliometrics may predict psychometrics.