Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.018951688 = product of:
  0.101075664 = sum of:
    0.05836024 = weight(_text_:author in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05836024 = score(doc=194,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

In the first part of this article the author defines the n-overlap vector whose coordinates consist of the fraction of the objects (e.g., books, N-grams, etc.) that belong to 1, 2, , n sets (more generally: families) (e.g., libraries, databases, etc.). With the aid of the Lorenz concentration theory, a theory of n-overlap similarity is conceived together with corresponding measures, such as the generalized Jaccard index (generalizing the well-known Jaccard index in case n 5 2). Next, the distributional form of the n-overlap vector is determined assuming certain distributions of the object's and of the set (family) sizes. In this section the decreasing power law and decreasing exponential distribution is explained for the n-overlap vector. Both item (token) n-overlap and source (type) n-overlap are studied. The n-overlap properties of objects indexed by a hierarchical system (e.g., books indexed by numbers from a UDC or Dewey system or by N-grams) are presented in the final section. The author shows how the results given in the previous section can be applied as well as how the Lorenz order of the n-overlap vector is respected by an increase or a decrease of the level of refinement in the hierarchical system (e.g., the value N in N-grams).

Date

3. 1.2007 14:26:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1165-1177

0.018896027 = product of:
  0.10077881 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

In a previous work (Egghe, 2011), the first author showed that Benford's law (describing the logarithmic distribution of the numbers 1, 2, ... , 9 as first digits of data in decimal form) is related to the classical law of Zipf with exponent 1. The work of Campanario and Coslado (2011), however, shows that Benford's law does not always fit practical data in a statistical sense. In this article, we use a generalization of Benford's law related to the general law of Zipf with exponent ? > 0. Using data from Campanario and Coslado, we apply nonlinear least squares to determine the optimal ? and show that this generalized law of Benford fits the data better than the classical law of Benford.

Date

26. 8.2012 14:04:21

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1662-1665

0.018561913 = product of:
  0.1484953 = sum of:
    0.09904061 = weight(_text_:author in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09904061 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6396787 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
    0.049454685 = weight(_text_:american in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049454685 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.45202136 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.6, S.422-427

0.016114442 = product of:
  0.12891553 = sum of:
    0.10006697 = weight(_text_:author in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10006697 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2118-2121

0.013812379 = product of:
  0.11049903 = sum of:
    0.08577169 = weight(_text_:author in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08577169 = score(doc=3336,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.370-373

0.011844954 = product of:
  0.094759636 = sum of:
    0.07003229 = weight(_text_:author in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07003229 = score(doc=2004,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1608-1616

0.011510316 = product of:
  0.09208253 = sum of:
    0.07147641 = weight(_text_:author in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07147641 = score(doc=271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.46164837 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Herdan's law in linguistics and Heaps' law in information retrieval are different formulations of the same phenomenon. Stated briefly and in linguistic terms they state that vocabularies' sizes are concave increasing power laws of texts' sizes. This study investigates these laws from a purely mathematical and informetric point of view. A general informetric argument shows that the problem of proving these laws is, in fact, ill-posed. Using the more general terminology of sources and items, the author shows by presenting exact formulas from Lotkaian informetrics that the total number T of sources is not only a function of the total number A of items, but is also a function of several parameters (e.g., the parameters occurring in Lotka's law). Consequently, it is shown that a fixed T(or A) value can lead to different possible A (respectively, T) values. Limiting the T(A)-variability to increasing samples (e.g., in a text as done in linguistics) the author then shows, in a purely mathematical way, that for large sample sizes T~ A**phi, where phi is a constant, phi < 1 but close to 1, hence roughly, Heaps' or Herdan's law can be proved without using any linguistic or informetric argument. The author also shows that for smaller samples, a is not a constant but essentially decreases as confirmed by practical examples. Finally, an exact informetric argument on random sampling in the items shows that, in most cases, T= T(A) is a concavely increasing function, in accordance with practical examples.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.702-709

0.009280956 = product of:
  0.07424765 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=2803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=2803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient and Salton's cosine measure is revealed based on the different possible values of the division of the L1-norm and the L2-norm of a vector. These different values yield a sheaf of increasingly straight lines which together form a cloud of points, being the investigated relation. The theoretical results are tested against the author co-citation relations among 24 informetricians for whom two matrices can be constructed, based on co-citations: the asymmetric occurrence matrix and the symmetric co-citation matrix. Both examples completely confirm the theoretical results. The results enable us to specify an algorithm that provides a threshold value for the cosine above which none of the corresponding Pearson correlations would be negative. Using this threshold value can be expected to optimize the visualization of the vector space.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.1027-1036

0.007868913 = product of:
  0.062951304 = sum of:
    0.04121224 = weight(_text_:american in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04121224 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3766845 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.021739064 = product of:
      0.043478128 = sum of:
        0.043478128 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043478128 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429

0.006407313 = product of:
  0.051258504 = sum of:
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

21. 7.2005 16:26:25

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.9, S.935-945

0.0044672755 = product of:
  0.07147641 = sum of:
    0.07147641 = weight(_text_:author in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07147641 = score(doc=4217,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.46164837 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

0.0030909178 = product of:
  0.049454685 = sum of:
    0.049454685 = weight(_text_:american in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049454685 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.45202136 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.871

0.002185609 = product of:
  0.034969743 = sum of:
    0.034969743 = weight(_text_:american in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034969743 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31962737 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Footnote

Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

0.002063346 = product of:
  0.033013538 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.233-241

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.158-165

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.452-454

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1502-1504

0.0018030355 = product of:
  0.028848568 = sum of:
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.13, S.1144-1160