Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0019502735 = product of:
  0.017552461 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=4578,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.12, S.1502-1512

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=5099,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article extends relevance theory (RT) from linguistic pragmatics into information retrieval. Using more than 50 retrieval experiments from the literature as examples, it applies RT to explain the frequency distributions of documents on relevance scales with three or more points. The scale points, which judges in experiments must consider in addition to queries and documents, are communications from researchers. In RT, the relevance of a communication varies directly with its cognitive effects and inversely with the effort of processing it. Researchers define and/or label the scale points to measure the cognitive effects of documents on judges. However, they apparently assume that all scale points as presented are equally easy for judges to process. Yet the notion that points cost variable effort explains fairly well the frequency distributions of judgments across them. By hypothesis, points that cost more effort are chosen by judges less frequently. Effort varies with the vagueness or strictness of scale-point labels and definitions. It is shown that vague scales tend to produce U- or V-shaped distributions, while strict scales tend to produce right-skewed distributions. These results reinforce the paper's more general argument that RT clarifies the concept of relevance in the dialogues of retrieval evaluation.