Search (163 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.12 
    0.12262627 = product of:
  0.5722559 = sum of:
    0.19075197 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19075197 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.19075197 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19075197 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.19075197 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19075197 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012) 0.04 
    0.038678452 = product of:
  0.13537458 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
    0.044509117 = weight(_text_:classification in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044509117 = score(doc=511,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
    0.044509117 = weight(_text_:classification in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044509117 = score(doc=511,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations-for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.
  3. Gómez-Núñez, A.J.; Vargas-Quesada, B.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: Updating the SCImago journal and country rank classification : a new approach using Ward's clustering and alternative combination of citation measures (2016) 0.03 
    0.025535407 = product of:
  0.11916523 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=2499,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2499, 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=2499)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=2499,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2499, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2499)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=2499,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2499, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2499)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This study introduces a new proposal to refine the classification of the SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) platform by using clustering techniques and an alternative combination of citation measures from an initial 18,891 SJR journal network. Thus, a journal-journal matrix including simultaneously fractionalized values of direct citation, cocitation, and coupling was symmetrized by cosine similarity and later transformed into distances before performing clustering. The results provided a new cluster-based subject structure comprising 290 clusters that emerge by executing Ward's clustering in two phases and using a mixed labeling procedure based on tf-idf scores of the original SJR category tags and significant words extracted from journal titles. In total, 13,716 SJR journals were classified using this new cluster-based scheme. Although more than 5,000 journals were omitted in the classification process, the method produced a consistent classification with a balanced structure of coherent and well-defined clusters, a moderated multiassignment of journals, and a softer concentration of journals over clusters than in the original SJR categories. New subject disciplines such as "nanoscience and nanotechnology" or "social work" were also detected, providing evidence of good performance of our approach in refining the journal classification and updating the subject classification structure.
  4. Ni, C.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Jiang, J.: Venue-author-coupling : a measure for identifying disciplines through author communities (2013) 0.02 
    0.023580873 = product of:
  0.082533054 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Conceptualizations of disciplinarity often focus on the social aspects of disciplines; that is, disciplines are defined by the set of individuals who participate in their activities and communications. However, operationalizations of disciplinarity often demarcate the boundaries of disciplines by standard classification schemes, which may be inflexible to changes in the participation profile of that discipline. To address this limitation, a metric called venue-author-coupling (VAC) is proposed and illustrated using journals from the Journal Citation Report's (JCR) library science and information science category. As JCRs are some of the most frequently used categories in bibliometric analyses, this allows for an examination of the extent to which the journals in JCR categories can be considered as proxies for disciplines. By extending the idea of bibliographic coupling, VAC identifies similarities among journals based on the similarities of their author profiles. The employment of this method using information science and library science journals provides evidence of four distinct subfields, that is, management information systems, specialized information and library science, library science-focused, and information science-focused research. The proposed VAC method provides a novel way to examine disciplinarity from the perspective of author communities.
  5. Liu, D.-R.; Shih, M.-J.: Hybrid-patent classification based on patent-network analysis (2011) 0.02 
    0.02257168 = product of:
  0.105334505 = sum of:
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=4189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
    0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758225 = score(doc=4189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:04:21
  6. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.02 
    0.022295665 = product of:
  0.078034826 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.014382556 = product of:
      0.028765112 = sum of:
        0.028765112 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028765112 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
  7. Wainer, J; Przibisczki de Oliveira, H.; Anido, R.: Patterns of bibliographic references in the ACM published papers (2011) 0.02 
    0.021377182 = product of:
  0.09976018 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=4240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=4240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=4240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This paper analyzes the bibliographic references made by all papers published by ACM in 2006. Both an automatic classification of all references and a human classification of a random sample of them resulted that around 40% of the references are to conference proceedings papers, around 30% are to journal papers, and around 8% are to books. Among the other types of documents, standards and RFC correspond to 3% of the references, technical and other reports correspond to 4%, and other Web references to 3%. Among the documents cited at least 10 times by the 2006 ACM papers, 41% are conferences papers, 37% are books, and 16% are journal papers.
  8. Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013) 0.02 
    0.019848065 = product of:
  0.09262431 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
    0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05224943 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.
  9. Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The impact of classification systems in the evaluation of the research performance of the Leiden Ranking universities (2018) 0.02 
    0.018966276 = product of:
  0.08850929 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=4374,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=4374,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=4374,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    In this article, we investigate the consequences of choosing different classification systems-namely, the way publications (or journals) are assigned to scientific fields-for the ranking of research units. We study the impact of this choice on the ranking of 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking in two cases. First, we compare a Web of Science (WoS) journal-level classification system, consisting of 236 subject categories, and a publication-level algorithmically constructed system, denoted G8, consisting of 5,119 clusters. The result is that the consequences of the move from the WoS to the G8 system using the Top 1% citation impact indicator are much greater than the consequences of this move using the Top 10% indicator. Second, we compare the G8 classification system and a publication-level alternative of the same family, the G6 system, consisting of 1,363 clusters. The result is that, although less important than in the previous case, the consequences of the move from the G6 to the G8 system under the Top 1% indicator are still of a large order of magnitude.
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.02 
    0.016367726 = product of:
  0.07638272 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2779, 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=2779)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
  11. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals : taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016) 0.02 
    0.016303156 = product of:
  0.07608139 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=2902,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
  12. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.02 
    0.016227381 = product of:
  0.075727776 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  13. Perez-Molina, E.: ¬The role of patent citations as a footprint of technology (2018) 0.02 
    0.01511595 = product of:
  0.0705411 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The fact that patents are documents highly constrained by law and structured by international treaties make them a unique body of publications for tracing the history and evolution of technology. The distinctiveness of prior art patent citations compared to bibliographic references in the nonpatent literature is discussed. Starting from these observations and using the patent classification scheme as a framework of reference, we have identified a data structure, the "technology footprint," derived from the patents cited as prior art for a selected set of patents. This data structure will provide us with dynamic information about the technological components of the selected set of patents, which represents a technology, company, or inventor. Two case studies are presented in order to illustrate the visualization of the technology footprint: one concerning an inventor-Mr. Engelbart, the inventor of the "computer mouse"-and another concerning the early years of a technology-computerized tomography.
  14. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.01 
    0.014850579 = product of:
  0.0693027 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1639,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1639,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    We explore classifying scientific disciplines including their temporal features by focusing on their collaboration structures over time. Bibliometric data for Slovenian researchers registered at the Slovenian Research Agency were used. These data were obtained from the Slovenian National Current Research Information System. We applied a recently developed hierarchical clustering procedure for symbolic data to the coauthorship structure of scientific disciplines. To track temporal changes, we divided data for the period 1986-2010 into five 5-year time periods. The clusters of disciplines for the Slovene science system revealed 5 clusters of scientific disciplines that, in large measure, correspond with the official national classification of sciences. However, there were also some significant differences pointing to the need for a dynamic classification system of sciences to better characterize them. Implications stemming from these results, especially with regard to classifying scientific disciplines, understanding the collaborative structure of science, and research and development policies, are discussed.
    Date
    21. 1.2015 14:55:22
  15. López Piñeiro, C.; Gimenez Toledo, E.: Knowledge classification : a problem for scientific assessment in Spain? (2011) 0.01 
    0.014107771 = product of:
  0.065836266 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=4735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4735)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4735)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4735)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Agreements and disagreements among some of the most important knowledge classifications involved in Spanish scientific activity assessment are presented here. Knowledge classifications used by two Spanish platforms for journals evaluation, RESH and In-RECS/In-RECJ; the one used by Web of Knowledge; and those used by the three main agencies working on scientific evaluation in Spain, ANECA, ANEP, and CNEAI are compared and analysed in order to check the differences between them. Four disciplines were traced across these knowledge classifications, and none of them tally with others. This state favours failures in the assessment system, especially in those disciplines whose position on classifications seems to be less clear. In this paper, the need for a rapprochement to the subject exposed is expressed. The opening of a debate is offered, with the aim of stimulating the improvement of the whole system, especially in Humanities and Social Sciences fields.
  16. Rokach, L.; Kalech, M.; Blank, I.; Stern, R.: Who is going to win the next Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Fellowship Award? : evaluating researchers by mining bibliographic data (2011) 0.01 
    0.012596626 = product of:
  0.058784254 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4945)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=4945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4945)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4945)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Accurately evaluating a researcher and the quality of his or her work is an important task when decision makers have to decide on such matters as promotions and awards. Publications and citations play a key role in this task, and many previous studies have proposed using measurements based on them for evaluating researchers. Machine learning techniques as a way of enhancing the evaluating process have been relatively unexplored. We propose using a machine learning approach for evaluating researchers. In particular, the proposed method combines the outputs of three learning techniques (logistics regression, decision trees, and artificial neural networks) to obtain a unified prediction with improved accuracy. We conducted several experiments to evaluate the model's ability to: (a) classify researchers in the field of artificial intelligence as Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) fellows and (b) predict the next AAAI fellowship winners. We show that both our classification and prediction methods are more accurate than are previous measurement methods, and reach a precision rate of 96% and a recall of 92%.
  17. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.01 
    0.011266903 = product of:
  0.05257888 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  18. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Dimensions and uncertainties of author citation rankings : lessons learned from frequency-weighted in-text citation counting (2016) 0.01 
    0.0106889075 = product of:
  0.07482235 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=2774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2774)
    0.049360957 = product of:
      0.098721914 = sum of:
        0.098721914 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098721914 = score(doc=2774,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.6144297 = fieldWeight in 2774, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In-text frequency-weighted citation counting has been seen as a particularly promising solution to the well-known problem of citation analysis that it treats all citations equally, be they crucial to the citing paper or perfunctory. But what is a good weighting scheme? We compare 12 different in-text citation frequency-weighting schemes in the field of library and information science (LIS) and explore author citation impact patterns based on their performance in these schemes. Our results show that the ranks of authors vary widely with different weighting schemes that favor or are biased against common citation impact patterns-substantiated, applied, or noted. These variations separate LIS authors quite clearly into groups with these impact patterns. With consensus rank limits, the hard upper and lower bounds for reasonable author ranks that they provide suggest that author citation ranks may be subject to something like an uncertainty principle.
  19. Moohebat, M.; Raj, R.G.; Kareem, S.B.A.; Thorleuchter, D.: Identifying ISI-indexed articles by their lexical usage : a text analysis approach (2015) 0.01 
    0.009990192 = product of:
  0.06993134 = sum of:
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 1664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=1664,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 1664, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1664)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 1664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=1664,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 1664, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1664)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This research creates an architecture for investigating the existence of probable lexical divergences between articles, categorized as Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and non-ISI, and consequently, if such a difference is discovered, to propose the best available classification method. Based on a collection of ISI- and non-ISI-indexed articles in the areas of business and computer science, three classification models are trained. A sensitivity analysis is applied to demonstrate the impact of words in different syntactical forms on the classification decision. The results demonstrate that the lexical domains of ISI and non-ISI articles are distinguishable by machine learning techniques. Our findings indicate that the support vector machine identifies ISI-indexed articles in both disciplines with higher precision than do the Naïve Bayesian and K-Nearest Neighbors techniques.
  20. McCain, K.W.: Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation : The case of the "Nash Equilibrium" (2011) 0.01 
    0.009653454 = product of:
  0.06757417 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=4479,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In order to examine the phenomena of eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation at both the aggregate and individual subject level, the literature relating to the game-theoretic concept of the Nash Equilibrium was studied over the period 1950-2008. Almost 5,300 bibliographic database records for publications explicitly citing at least one of two papers by John Nash and/or using the phrase "Nash Equilibrium/Nash Equilibria" were retrieved from the Web of Science and various subject-related databases. Breadth of influence is demonstrated by the wide variety of subject areas in which Nash Equilibrium-related publications occur, including in the natural and social sciences, humanities, law, and medicine. Fifty percent of all items have been published since 2002, suggesting that Nash's papers have experienced "delayed recognition." A degree of Obliteration by Incorporation is observed in that implicit citations (use of the phrase without citation) increased over the time period studied, although the proportion of all citations that are implicit has remained relatively stable during the most recent decade with an annual rate of between 60% and 70%; subject areas vary in their level of obliteration.

Authors

Languages

  • e 158
  • d 5
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 157
  • m 5
  • el 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications