Search (239 results, page 1 of 12)

0.17462783 = product of:
  0.21828477 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
    0.017369429 = weight(_text_:of in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017369429 = score(doc=61,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
    0.08412271 = weight(_text_:subject in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08412271 = score(doc=61,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
    0.044653583 = product of:
      0.08930717 = sum of:
        0.08930717 = weight(_text_:headings in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08930717 = score(doc=61,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.

0.14106214 = product of:
  0.17632768 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
    0.013130054 = weight(_text_:of in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013130054 = score(doc=225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
    0.059483737 = weight(_text_:subject in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059483737 = score(doc=225,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
    0.03157485 = product of:
      0.0631497 = sum of:
        0.0631497 = weight(_text_:headings in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631497 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

0.08349392 = product of:
  0.13915652 = sum of:
    0.027290303 = weight(_text_:of in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027290303 = score(doc=943,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Object

Web of Knowledge

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080

0.06685809 = product of:
  0.16714522 = sum of:
    0.14282802 = weight(_text_:list in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14282802 = score(doc=1259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5669625 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
    0.024317201 = weight(_text_:of in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024317201 = score(doc=1259,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.

Source

Journal of documentation. 60(2004) no.1, S.44-61

0.048862576 = product of:
  0.12215644 = sum of:
    0.02599618 = weight(_text_:of in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02599618 = score(doc=6358,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
    0.09616026 = weight(_text_:subject in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09616026 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 19(1993) no.3, S.225-231

0.04868604 = product of:
  0.12171509 = sum of:
    0.10202001 = weight(_text_:list in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10202001 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4049732 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
    0.019695079 = weight(_text_:of in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019695079 = score(doc=2266,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529

0.046825737 = product of:
  0.11706434 = sum of:
    0.024912525 = weight(_text_:of in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024912525 = score(doc=3467,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
    0.09215181 = weight(_text_:subject in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09215181 = score(doc=3467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.7, S.676-683

0.046282094 = product of:
  0.11570524 = sum of:
    0.0185687 = weight(_text_:of in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0185687 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.097136535 = weight(_text_:subject in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097136535 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308

0.043688543 = product of:
  0.109221354 = sum of:
    0.031512126 = weight(_text_:of in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031512126 = score(doc=4842,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
    0.07770923 = weight(_text_:subject in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770923 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991) no.9, S.676-684

0.041882206 = product of:
  0.10470551 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=58,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
    0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082423076 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.039914053 = product of:
  0.099785134 = sum of:
    0.02840465 = weight(_text_:of in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02840465 = score(doc=4841,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
    0.07138049 = weight(_text_:subject in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07138049 = score(doc=4841,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The presence of clustering structure in the CF document collection (cystic fibrosis) is evaluated as a function of the exhaustivity of 5 composite representations. The composite representations are constructed from 2 subject descriptions, based on MeSH and subheadings, and 2 citation indexes, based on the complete set of references an and a comprehensive set of citations to each document. Experiment results reveal observable evidence of clustering structure diminishes as the exhaustivity of each representation is decreased. The representation composed of references and citations shows less evidence of clustering structure at the exhaustive level but more uniform evidence of clustering structure over a wide range of exhaustivity levels than composite representations that include subject descriptions. The structures imposed on the CF document collection by all composite representations satisfy the necessary condition for a meaningful clustering outcome

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991) no.9, S.669-675

0.037978407 = product of:
  0.09494601 = sum of:
    0.026260108 = weight(_text_:of in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026260108 = score(doc=5725,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
    0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068685904 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Proposes a typology for measuring the levels of citation relations netween papers. Introduces a new family of citation based classification schemes and outlines the typology that can be seen as being analogous to Ranganathan's APUPA pattern in subject mapping

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.8, S.650-652

0.032726385 = product of:
  0.08181596 = sum of:
    0.013130054 = weight(_text_:of in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013130054 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
    0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068685904 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.032271307 = product of:
  0.08067827 = sum of:
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=3675,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Predicting relevance of documents from citations is a common problem for information users. The study addresses the relevance prediction process and most specifically, what is viewed by the subject while using the citations. 2 kinds of protocols were collected while 11 subjects viewed 7 citations each. Eye fixations and eye movements between parts of citations were examined. Verbal reports from subjects during this process were used to explore the process of assessment

Source

ASIS '91: systems understanding people. proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths

0.031650092 = product of:
  0.07912523 = sum of:
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=1080,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=1080,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

0.031374592 = product of:
  0.07843648 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=954,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 3(1997) no.4, S.39-54

0.031374592 = product of:
  0.07843648 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=5113,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=5113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A formula for the ranking of scientists based on diachronous citation counts is proposed. The paper generalises the fact that the citation generation potential (CGP) is not the same for all papers, it differs from paper to paper, and also to a certain extent depends on the subject domain of the papers. The method of ranking proposed in no way replaces peer review. It merely acts as an aid for peers to help them arrive at a better judgement.

Source

Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.5, S.622-628

0.030382723 = product of:
  0.07595681 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=327,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars

0.030261297 = product of:
  0.07565324 = sum of:
    0.02757311 = weight(_text_:of in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02757311 = score(doc=1452,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Research fronts, defined as clusters of documents that tend to cite a fixed, time invariant set of base documents, are plotted as time lines for visualization and exploration. Using a set of documents related to the subject of anthrax research, this article illustrates the construction, exploration, and interpretation of time lines for the purpose of identifying and visualizing temporal changes in research activity through journal articles. Such information is useful for presentation to meinbers of expert panels used for technology forecasting.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.413-422

0.029630525 = product of:
  0.07407631 = sum of:
    0.02599618 = weight(_text_:of in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02599618 = score(doc=657,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 4(1997) no.2, S.27-41