Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029653504 = product of:
  0.05930701 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.015300324 = product of:
  0.061201297 = sum of:
    0.061201297 = weight(_text_:reference in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061201297 = score(doc=5210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Zang and Wolfram compute the discrimination value for terms as the difference between the centroid value of all terms in the corpus and that value without the term in question, and suggest selection be made by comparing density changes with a visualization tool. The Distance Angle Retrieval Environment (DARE) visually projects a document or term space by presenting distance similarity on the X axis and angular similarity on the Y axis. Thus a document icon appearing close to the X axis would be relevant to reference points in terms of a distance similarity measure, while those close to the Y axis are relevant to reference points in terms of an angle based measure. Using 450 Associated Press news reports indexed by 44 distinct terms, the removal of the term ``Yeltsin'' causes the cluster to fall on the Y axis indicating a good discriminator. For an angular measure, cosine say, movement along the X axis to the left will signal good discrimination, as movement to the right will signal poor discrimination. A term density space could also be used. Most terms are shown to be indifferent discriminators. Different measures result in different choices as good and poor discriminators, as does the use of a term space rather than a document space. The visualization approach is clearly feasible, and provides some additional insights not found in the computation of a discrimination value.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 4544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=4544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 4544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4544)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data citation, where products of research such as data sets, software, and tissue cultures are shared and acknowledged, is becoming more common in the era of Open Science. Currently, the practice of formal data citation-where data references are included alongside bibliographic references in the reference section of a publication-is uncommon. We examine the prevalence of data citation, documenting data sharing and reuse, in a sample of full text articles from the biological/biomedical sciences, the fields with the most public data sets available documented by the Data Citation Index (DCI). We develop a method that combines automated text extraction with human assessment for revealing candidate occurrences of data sharing and reuse by using terms that are most likely to indicate their occurrence. The analysis reveals that informal data citation in the main text of articles is far more common than formal data citations in the references of articles. As a result, data sharers do not receive documented credit for their data contributions in a similar way as authors do for their research articles because informal data citations are not recorded in sources such as the DCI. Ongoing challenges for the study of data citation are also outlined.

0.009389759 = product of:
  0.037559036 = sum of:
    0.037559036 = product of:
      0.07511807 = sum of:
        0.07511807 = weight(_text_:file in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07511807 = score(doc=2376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.29610437 = fieldWeight in 2376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A multidimensional-scaling approach is used to analyze frequently used medical-topic terms in queries submitted to a Web-based consumer health information system. Based on a year-long transaction log file, five medical focus keywords (stomach, hip, stroke, depression, and cholesterol) and their co-occurring query terms are analyzed. An overlap-coefficient similarity measure and a conversion measure are used to calculate the proximity of terms to one another based on their co-occurrences in queries. The impact of the dimensionality of the visual configuration, the cutoff point of term co-occurrence for inclusion in the analysis, and the Minkowski metric power k on the stress value are discussed. A visual clustering of groups of terms based on the proximity within each focus-keyword group is also conducted. Term distributions within each visual configuration are characterized and are compared with formal medical vocabulary. This investigation reveals that there are significant differences between consumer health query-term usage and more formal medical terminology used by medical professionals when describing the same medical subject. Future directions are discussed.

0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.22-29

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22