Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Stuart, E."
  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Goriunova, O.; Vis, F.; Faulkner, S.; Burns, A.; Aulich, J.; Mas-Bleda, A.; Stuart, E.; D'Orazio, F.: Chatting through pictures : a classification of images tweeted in one week in the UK and USA (2016) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 3215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=3215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 3215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Twitter is used by a substantial minority of the populations of many countries to share short messages, sometimes including images. Nevertheless, despite some research into specific images, such as selfies, and a few news stories about specific tweeted photographs, little is known about the types of images that are routinely shared. In response, this article reports a content analysis of random samples of 800 images tweeted from the UK or USA during a week at the end of 2014. Although most images were photographs, a substantial minority were hybrid or layered image forms: phone screenshots, collages, captioned pictures, and pictures of text messages. About half were primarily of one or more people, including 10% that were selfies, but a wide variety of other things were also pictured. Some of the images were for advertising or to share a joke but in most cases the purpose of the tweet seemed to be to share the minutiae of daily lives, performing the function of chat or gossip, sometimes in innovative ways.
  2. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.
  3. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.01 
    0.008628479 = product of:
  0.017256958 = sum of:
    0.017256958 = product of:
      0.034513917 = sum of:
        0.034513917 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034513917 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Authors

Years

Themes