Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  1. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.18 
    0.18481234 = product of:
  0.2772185 = sum of:
    0.24329849 = weight(_text_:citation in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24329849 = score(doc=613,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.0361958 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.03392 = product of:
      0.06784 = sum of:
        0.06784 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06784 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  2. Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein Netz wissenschaftlicher Informationen : gesponnen aus Fußnoten (1999) 0.13 
    0.13391277 = product of:
  0.20086914 = sum of:
    0.14597909 = weight(_text_:citation in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14597909 = score(doc=3890,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
    0.05489005 = product of:
      0.1097801 = sum of:
        0.1097801 = weight(_text_:index in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1097801 = score(doc=3890,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
    Arts and Humanities Citation Index
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Stock, W.G.: Journal Citation Reports : Ein Impact Factor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? (2001) 0.11 
    0.10827799 = product of:
  0.16241698 = sum of:
    0.136008 = weight(_text_:citation in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.136008 = score(doc=5915,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.026408987 = product of:
      0.052817974 = sum of:
        0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052817974 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5915, 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=5915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen
    Object
    Journal Citation Reports
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  4. Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004) 0.10 
    0.099912435 = product of:
  0.14986865 = sum of:
    0.12874146 = weight(_text_:citation in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12874146 = score(doc=5249,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.54830325 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
    0.021127189 = product of:
      0.042254377 = sum of:
        0.042254377 = weight(_text_:index in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042254377 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 5249, 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=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?
  5. Stock, W.G.: Eugene Garfield und die Folgen : der Weg der Fußnote bis in die Wissenschaftspolitik (2002) 0.05 
    0.048659697 = product of:
  0.14597909 = sum of:
    0.14597909 = weight(_text_:citation in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14597909 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  6. Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation mittels Datenbanken : methodisch einwandfrei? (1995) 0.04 
    0.040549748 = product of:
  0.12164924 = sum of:
    0.12164924 = weight(_text_:citation in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12164924 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  7. Garfield, E.; Paris, S.W.; Stock, W.G.: HistCite(TM) : a software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage (2006) 0.04 
    0.040142205 = product of:
  0.12042661 = sum of:
    0.12042661 = weight(_text_:citation in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12042661 = score(doc=79,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.51289076 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).
  8. Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008) 0.03 
    0.032439798 = product of:
  0.097319394 = sum of:
    0.097319394 = weight(_text_:citation in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097319394 = score(doc=2343,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.4144783 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.
  9. Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein allgemeiner Bibliotheksindex (1998) 0.03 
    0.030494478 = product of:
  0.09148343 = sum of:
    0.09148343 = product of:
      0.18296686 = sum of:
        0.18296686 = weight(_text_:index in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18296686 = score(doc=1736,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.836226 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A general library index, produced as a series over years, would describe performance in the whole national system, showing increases and decreases compared with previous years. The index should cover input, processing and output and be modelled on the consumer price index. This will reflect service quality and quantity and users' reactions
  10. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Intellectual property information : A comparative analysis of main information providers (2006) 0.02 
    0.024329849 = product of:
  0.072989546 = sum of:
    0.072989546 = weight(_text_:citation in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072989546 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).
  11. Stock, W.G.; Weber, S.: Facets of informetrics : Preface (2006) 0.02 
    0.0229384 = product of:
  0.0688152 = sum of:
    0.0688152 = weight(_text_:citation in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0688152 = score(doc=76,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.29308042 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.
  12. Stock, W.G.: Publikation und Zitat : Die problematische Basis empirischer Wissenschaftsforschung (2001) 0.02 
    0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  13. Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002) 0.02 
    0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  14. Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsinformatik : Fundierung, Gegenstand und Methoden (1980) 0.02 
    0.018090667 = product of:
  0.054272 = sum of:
    0.054272 = product of:
      0.108544 = sum of:
        0.108544 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108544 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164
  15. Stock, W.G.: Informationsmangel trotz Überfluß : Informationsgesellschaft verlangt neue Berufe und Berufsbilder (1995) 0.02 
    0.018090667 = product of:
  0.054272 = sum of:
    0.054272 = product of:
      0.108544 = sum of:
        0.108544 = weight(_text_:22 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108544 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Insider. 1995, Nr.4, Juli, S.19-22
  16. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Recherchieren im Internet (2004) 0.02 
    0.018090667 = product of:
  0.054272 = sum of:
    0.054272 = product of:
      0.108544 = sum of:
        0.108544 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108544 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    27.11.2005 18:04:22
  17. Stock, W.G.: Endnutzersystem für internationale Geschäftsinformationen (1998) 0.02 
    0.015829332 = product of:
  0.047487997 = sum of:
    0.047487997 = product of:
      0.09497599 = sum of:
        0.09497599 = weight(_text_:22 in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09497599 = score(doc=2407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Password. 1998, H.10, S.22-28
  18. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.012449317 = product of:
  0.03734795 = sum of:
    0.03734795 = product of:
      0.0746959 = sum of:
        0.0746959 = weight(_text_:index in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0746959 = score(doc=865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  19. Linde, F.; Stock, W.G.: Informationsmarkt : Informationen im I-Commerce anbieten und nachfragen (2011) 0.01 
    0.009045334 = product of:
  0.027136 = sum of:
    0.027136 = product of:
      0.054272 = sum of:
        0.054272 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054272 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    23. 9.2010 11:15:22
  20. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.01 
    0.008802996 = product of:
  0.026408987 = sum of:
    0.026408987 = product of:
      0.052817974 = sum of:
        0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052817974 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 295, 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=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 16
  • e 8

Types

  • a 21
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes