Search (239 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.16 
    0.15861982 = product of:
  0.23792972 = sum of:
    0.19311218 = weight(_text_:citation in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19311218 = score(doc=3161,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.82245487 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.044817537 = product of:
      0.089635074 = sum of:
        0.089635074 = weight(_text_:index in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089635074 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
  2. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.13 
    0.13046543 = product of:
  0.19569814 = sum of:
    0.16856214 = weight(_text_:citation in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16856214 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.027136 = product of:
      0.054272 = sum of:
        0.054272 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054272 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Page, L.; Brin, S.; Motwani, R.; Winograd, T.: ¬The PageRank citation ranking : Bringing order to the Web (1999) 0.08 
    0.08028441 = product of:
  0.24085322 = sum of:
    0.24085322 = weight(_text_:citation in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24085322 = score(doc=496,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.0257815 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  4. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.07 
    0.07259898 = product of:
  0.10889846 = sum of:
    0.08515447 = weight(_text_:citation in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08515447 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.023743998 = product of:
      0.047487997 = sum of:
        0.047487997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047487997 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  5. Gorbunov, A.L.: Relevance of Web documents : ghosts consensus method (2002) 0.07 
    0.06978689 = product of:
  0.10468033 = sum of:
    0.072989546 = weight(_text_:citation in 1005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072989546 = score(doc=1005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 1005, 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=1005)
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 1005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=1005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The dominant method currently used to improve the quality of Internet search systems is often called "digital democracy." Such an approach implies the utilization of the majority opinion of Internet users to determine the most relevant documents: for example, citation index usage for sorting of search results (google.com) or an enrichment of a query with terms that are asked frequently in relation with the query's theme. "Digital democracy" is an effective instrument in many cases, but it has an unavoidable shortcoming, which is a matter of principle: the average intellectual and cultural level of Internet users is very low- everyone knows what kind of information is dominant in Internet query statistics. Therefore, when one searches the Internet by means of "digital democracy" systems, one gets answers that reflect an underlying assumption that the user's mind potential is very low, and that his cultural interests are not demanding. Thus, it is more correct to use the term "digital ochlocracy" to refer to Internet search systems with "digital democracy." Based an the well-known mathematical mechanism of linear programming, we propose a method to solve the indicated problem.
  6. Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006) 0.07 
    0.06978689 = product of:
  0.10468033 = sum of:
    0.072989546 = weight(_text_:citation in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072989546 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 5131, 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=5131)
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  7. Hancock, B.: Subject-specific search engines : using the Harvest system to gather and maintain information on the Internet (1998) 0.06 
    0.0585216 = product of:
  0.1755648 = sum of:
    0.1755648 = sum of:
      0.12807679 = weight(_text_:index in 3238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12807679 = score(doc=3238,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 3238, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3238)
      0.047487997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047487997 = score(doc=3238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3238, 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=3238)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The increasing expansion of the Internet has made resources available to users in sometimes unmanageable abundance. To help users manage this proliferation of information, librarians have begun to add URLs to their home pages. As well, specialized search engines are being used to retrieve information from selected sources in aneffort to return pertinent results. Describes the Harvest system which has been used to develop Index Antiquus, a specialized engine, for the classics and mediaeval studies. Presents a working example of how to search Index Antiquus
    Date
    6. 3.1997 16:22:15
    Object
    Index Antiquus
  8. Hüskes, R.; Kleber, D.: ¬Den Server im Griff (1999) 0.06 
    0.05782532 = product of:
  0.17347595 = sum of:
    0.17347595 = sum of:
      0.10563595 = weight(_text_:index in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10563595 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.06784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06784 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4008, 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=4008)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 8.1999 21:21:10
    Object
    Microsoft Index Server
  9. Noruzi, A.: Google Scholar : the new generation of citation indexes (2005) 0.05 
    0.054403197 = product of:
  0.16320959 = sum of:
    0.16320959 = weight(_text_:citation in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16320959 = score(doc=5061,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  10. Fordahl, M.: Mit Google den PC durchforsten : Kleines Programm erstellt in rechenfreien Zeiten einen Index (2004) 0.05 
    0.046484523 = product of:
  0.13945356 = sum of:
    0.13945356 = sum of:
      0.09148343 = weight(_text_:index in 4209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09148343 = score(doc=4209,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.418113 = fieldWeight in 4209, 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=4209)
      0.047970124 = weight(_text_:22 in 4209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047970124 = score(doc=4209,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4209, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4209)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "Die Google-Suche nach Dateien im Internet kann nun auch auf en eigenen PC ausgedehnt werden. Ein kleines kostenloses Programm, das sich am unteren Bildschirmrand einnistet, startet die Volltextsuche auf der Festplatte. Google erfasst den Inhalt aller Web-Seiten und Dokumente im Microsoft-Office-Format sowie die Namen sonstiger Dateien und zeigt die Trefferliste im Browser in der vertrauten Liste an - allerdings nur auf Computern mit Windows 2000 oder Windows XE Bei der Entwicklung dieses Werkzeugs hat Google sowohl die eigene Suchtechnologie als auch eine Schwäche von Windows ausgenutzt. Bei der "Desktop-Suche" kommt der gleiche Algorithmus zum Einsatz wie bei der Internet-Suche. Für die dazu benötigte Datenbank wird der Index-Dienst von Windows verwendet, der nur wenigen Anwendern bekannt ist, weil er etwas kompliziert und obendrein ziemlich langsam ist. Das neue Google Tool erstellt selbst diesen Suchindex für die Dateien in der Zeit, wenn der Computer gerade untätig ist. Sobald das 400 KB große Programm heruntergeladen und installiert ist, fängt es damit an, den PC zu durchforsten. Bei gut gefüllten Festplatten dauert es ein paar Stunden oder auch ein paar Tage, bis dieser Vorgang abgeschlossen ist. Sobald der Prozessor 30 Sekunden nichts zu tun hat, wird die Arbeit am Index aufgenommen beziehungsweise fortgesetzt. Ist er fertig, bietet diese Datenbank das Material, auf den sich der Google- Algorithmus stürzt, sobald eine Suchanfrage gestartet wird. Die meisten Google-Tricks für die Suche nach Web-Seiten, Bildern oder Beiträgen in Newsgroups funktionieren auch bei der Desktop-Suche."
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
    Source
    Bergische Landeszeitung. Nr.247 vom 21.10.2004, S.22
  11. Publishers go head-to-head over search tools : Elsevier's Scopus (2004) 0.05 
    0.045813866 = product of:
  0.068720795 = sum of:
    0.042577233 = weight(_text_:citation in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042577233 = score(doc=2496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.18133426 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
    0.026143564 = product of:
      0.052287128 = sum of:
        0.052287128 = weight(_text_:index in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052287128 = score(doc=2496,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.23897146 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "Will there ever be a science equivalent of Google? Two of the world's biggest science publishing and information firms seem to think that there will. They are about to compete head-to-head to create the most popular tool for searching the scientific literature. Elsevier, the Amsterdam-based publisher of more than 1,800 journals, has announced that this autumn it will launch Scopus, an online search engine covering abstracts and references from 14,000 scientific journals. Scopus will arrive as a direct competitor for the established Web of Science, owned by Thomson ISI of Philadelphia, the scientific information specialist. "Scopus will definitely be a threat to ISI," says one science publishing expert, who asked not to be named. "But ISI will not just let this happen. There will be some kind of arms race in terms of adding new features." Many researchers are already wedded to subject-specific databases of scientific information, such as PubMed, for biomedical research. But Web of Science is currently the only service to cover the full spectrum of scientific disciplines and publications. It can also generate the citation statistics that are sometimes used to measure the quality ofjournals and individual papers. ISI, which is widely used by libraries worldwide, may be hard to displace. It covers fewer than 9,000 journals, but it has been available in its present form since 1997 and includes a 60-year archive of papers. Thomson ISI says it will extend this to 105 years by the end of 2005. The company also owns the only extensive database an patent abstracts.
    Elsevier cannot hope to match this coverage in the short term. The company has been able to draw an its experience of running biomedical and pharmaceutical databases, and developers began compiling a multidisciplinary index two years ago. Even so, when it launches, Scopus will index only five years of references far some journals, rising to ten years during 2005. Data an abstracts will go back further, in some cases to the mid-1960s. Because Scopus has been built from scratch, Elsevier has been able to work with librarians to develop an alternative to the Web of Science interface, which has been criticized by some users. "Users are very happy with Scopus," says Steven Gheyselinck, a librarian at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who has been testing it. Although Scopus and Web of Science are the only products aiming to cover all of science, other search engines are also under development. The Google of science could end up being Google itself the company has collaborated with nine publishers, including Nature Publishing Group, to create an engine called CrossRef Search. This service, a pilot of which appeared last month, allows users to search digital versions of all papers held by the publishers involved and returns links to articles an their websites. Unlike Web of Science and Scopus, which scan through the titles and abstracts of articles, CrossRef Search also searches the full text of papers. Many of the other 300 or so members of CrossRef - a publishers' collaboration established to allow easier linking between citations - are likely to join the service if the pilot is successful."
  12. Ardo, A.; Lundberg, S.: ¬A regional distributed WWW search and indexing service : the DESIRE way (1998) 0.04 
    0.04344636 = product of:
  0.13033907 = sum of:
    0.13033907 = sum of:
      0.089635074 = weight(_text_:index in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089635074 = score(doc=4190,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Creates an open, metadata aware system for distributed, collaborative WWW indexing. The system has 3 main components: a harvester (for collecting information), a database (for making the collection searchable), and a user interface (for making the information available). all components can be distributed across networked computers, thus supporting scalability. The system is metadata aware and thus allows searches on several fields including title, document author and URL. Nordic Web Index (NWI) is an application using this system to create a regional Nordic Web-indexing service. NWI is built using 5 collaborating service points within the Nordic countries. The NWI databases can be used to build additional services
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
    Object
    Nordic Web Index
  13. Vaughan, L.; Chen, Y.: Data mining from web search queries : a comparison of Google trends and Baidu index (2015) 0.04 
    0.041801147 = product of:
  0.12540343 = sum of:
    0.12540343 = sum of:
      0.09148343 = weight(_text_:index in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09148343 = score(doc=1605,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = 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)
      0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03392 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  14. Lewandowski, D.: Spezialsuche für wissenschaftliche Informationen (2004) 0.04 
    0.040549748 = product of:
  0.12164924 = sum of:
    0.12164924 = weight(_text_:citation in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12164924 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 3298, 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=3298)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  15. Internet: The editor's choice (2004) 0.04 
    0.040477723 = product of:
  0.12143316 = sum of:
    0.12143316 = sum of:
      0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073945165 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
      0.047487997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047487997 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2090, 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=2090)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Googeln Sie zuweilen, um wissenschaftliche Publikationen zu finden? Dazu waren bislang recht präzise Suchanfragen nötig. um den hermeneutischen Aufwand, Spreu von Weizen zu trennen, in Grenzen zu halten - Namen alleine reichten etwa nicht. Seit neuestem bietet Google, in Zusammenarbeit rnit Verlagen, unter http://scholar.google.com/ eine auf wissenschaftliche Publikationen spezialisierte Version seiner Suchmaschine an. Das Motto: "Stand an the shoulders of giants." Obwohl noch als "beta" ausgewiesen. fallen erste Tests beeindruckend aus: umfassend und tatsächlich ausschliesslich auf wissenschaftliche Arbeiten beschränkt. Sortiert wird nach einem aus gegenseitiger Zitation gewonnenen Index, ähnlich zu Googles "Page Rank". Wenn sich diese Qualität halten und ausbauen lässt, haben wir die Geburtsstunde eines weiteren wichtigen Instruments wissenschaftlicher Literaturrecherche und -Versorgung erlebt.
    Date
    3. 1.2005 12:03:22
  16. Cheng, S.; YunTao, P.; JunPeng, Y.; Hong, G.; ZhengLu, Y.; ZhiYu, H.: PageRank, HITS and impact factor for journal ranking (2009) 0.04 
    0.035117112 = product of:
  0.10535134 = sum of:
    0.10535134 = weight(_text_:citation in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10535134 = score(doc=2513,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.44868594 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Journal citation measures are one of the most widely used bibliometric tools. The most well-known measure is the ISI Impact Factor, under the standard definition, the impact factor of journal j in a given year is the average number of citations received by papers published in the previous two years of journal j. However, the impact factor has its "intrinsic" limitations, it is a ranking measure based fundamentally on a pure counting of the in-degrees of nodes in the network, and its calculation does not take into account the "impact" or "prestige" of the journals in which the citations appear. Google's PageRank algorithm and Kleinberg's HITS method are webpage ranking algorithm, they compute the scores of webpages based on a combination of the number of hyperlinks that point to the page and the status of pages that the hyperlinks originate from, a page is important if it is pointed to by other important pages. We demonstrate how popular webpage algorithm PageRank and HITS can be used ranking journal, and we compared ISI impact factor, PageRank and HITS for journal ranking, and with PageRank and HITS compute respectively including self-citation and non self-citation, and discussed the merit and shortcomings and the scope of application that the various algorithms are used to rank journal.
  17. Bates, M.E.: Quick answers to odd questions (2004) 0.03 
    0.034893446 = product of:
  0.052340165 = sum of:
    0.036494773 = weight(_text_:citation in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036494773 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.15542936 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
    0.015845392 = product of:
      0.031690784 = sum of:
        0.031690784 = weight(_text_:index in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031690784 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.14483857 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."
  18. Duval, B.K.; Main, L.: Searching the Internet : part 2 trail-blazers (1997) 0.03 
    0.03469519 = product of:
  0.104085565 = sum of:
    0.104085565 = sum of:
      0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338157 = score(doc=858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=858)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 858, 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=858)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Presents a guide to searching for information on the Internet covering Research-It; familiar quotations: a collection of passages, phrases and proverbs traced to their sources in ancient and modern literature by John Bartlett; the Internet Public Library Reference Center; SearchERIC Database; Britannica Online; Britannica's Lives; The complete works of William Shakespeare; Flicks/Movie Schedules and Reviews; the Electronic Newsstand; CNN Interactive; Time Warner's Pathfinder; Electronic Newspapers from all 50 States; Yahoo, News; Newspapers; Techweb; ZDNet; the On-line Books Page; Columbia University Bartleby Library; the Children's Literature Web Guide; National Institutes of Health; US Census Bureau; Earthquake Info; US Postal Service Zip+4 Lookup; the Federal Web Locator; World Wide Web Virtual Library; US Government Information Sources; Index of the Constitution of the US; US States Code; Find California Code; Dearch for Bills; California Tenant's Rights; The Online Career Center; QuickAID Home Page; City.Net; Netscape's Destinations Button; International Telephone Directory; World Alumni Net; Archives of Adoptees and Birth Parents; and World Wide Registry Matching Adoptees with Birth Parents
    Date
    6. 3.1997 16:22:15
  19. Ortega, J.L.; Aguillo, I.F.: Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations : comparative analysis of author profiles (2014) 0.03 
    0.0344076 = product of:
  0.1032228 = sum of:
    0.1032228 = weight(_text_:citation in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1032228 = score(doc=1284,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.4396206 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.
  20. Sieverts, E.: Citatie-zoeken op het Web (1997) 0.03 
    0.032439798 = product of:
  0.097319394 = sum of:
    0.097319394 = weight(_text_:citation in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097319394 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.4144783 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Citation searching on the Web

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 120
  • e 116
  • nl 2
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 204
  • el 24
  • m 13
  • x 4
  • p 2
  • s 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications