Search (193 results, page 1 of 10)

0.06121807 = product of:
  0.13774066 = sum of:
    0.067301154 = weight(_text_:line in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067301154 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009326885 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01958201 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04153061 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.049143516 = product of:
  0.11057291 = sum of:
    0.0117976805 = weight(_text_:information in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0117976805 = score(doc=2213,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.015665608 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015665608 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.046986517 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046986517 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27532694 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.036123104 = product of:
      0.07224621 = sum of:
        0.07224621 = weight(_text_:theories in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07224621 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.3414048 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.

0.04780719 = product of:
  0.21513236 = sum of:
    0.013190207 = weight(_text_:information in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013190207 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.20194215 = sum of:
      0.12771446 = weight(_text_:theories in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12771446 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.6035241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.07422768 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07422768 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.044626564 = product of:
  0.20081954 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.19158639 = sum of:
      0.15484557 = weight(_text_:theories in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15484557 = score(doc=5269,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.73173416 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03674083 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.330-341

0.03830127 = product of:
  0.11490381 = sum of:
    0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011192262 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
    0.033231772 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033231772 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
    0.07047977 = weight(_text_:techniques in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07047977 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4129904 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Current citation-based document retrieval systems generally offer only limited search facilities, such as author search. In order to facilitate more advanced search functions, we have developed a significantly improved system that employs two novel techniques: Context-based Cluster Analysis (CCA) and Context-based Ontology Generation frAmework (COGA). CCA aims to extract relevant information from clusters originally obtained from disparate clustering methods by building relationships between them. The built relationships are then represented as formal context using the Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) technique. COGA aims to generate ontology from clusters relationship built by CCA. By combining these two techniques, we are able to perform ontology learning from a citation database using clustering results. We have implemented the improved system and have demonstrated its use for finding research domain expertise. We have also conducted performance evaluation on the system and the results are encouraging.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.248-264

0.02527295 = product of:
  0.07581885 = sum of:
    0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065951035 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027693143 = score(doc=3763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04153061 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.02504972 = product of:
  0.11272374 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=5128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
    0.10217157 = product of:
      0.20434314 = sum of:
        0.20434314 = weight(_text_:theories in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20434314 = score(doc=5128,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Theories of citation are as elusive as theories of information science, which have been debated for decade. Gives an overview of some of these theories, and as a basis for discussion offers the term citationology as the theory and practice of citation, including its derivative disciplines citation analysis and bibliometrics

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.023839835 = product of:
  0.107279256 = sum of:
    0.094221614 = weight(_text_:line in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094221614 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
    0.01305764 = weight(_text_:information in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01305764 = score(doc=1452,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.022989947 = product of:
  0.10345476 = sum of:
    0.094221614 = weight(_text_:line in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094221614 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Are computer science papers extended after they are published? We have surveyed 200 computer science publications, 100 journal articles, and 100 conference papers, using self-citations to identify potential and actual continuations. We are interested in determining the proportion of papers that do indeed continue, how and when the continuation takes place, and whether any distinctions are found between the journal and conference populations. Despite the implicit assumption of a research line behind each paper, manifest in the ubiquitous "future research" notes that close many of them, we find that more than 70% of the papers are never continued.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1104-1111

0.018614836 = product of:
  0.08376676 = sum of:
    0.021104332 = weight(_text_:information in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021104332 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
    0.06266243 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06266243 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

Information scientist. 12(1978), S.67-71

0.016099686 = product of:
  0.07244858 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
    0.063215435 = product of:
      0.12643087 = sum of:
        0.12643087 = weight(_text_:theories in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12643087 = score(doc=5126,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.59745836 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?

0.014972444 = product of:
  0.067375995 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
    0.05814285 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05814285 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3406997 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.4, S.16-24

0.014592217 = product of:
  0.06566498 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=5766,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
    0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049836725 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.315-330

0.01454961 = product of:
  0.06547324 = sum of:
    0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007914125 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.057559118 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057559118 = score(doc=2290,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.110-114

0.014105807 = product of:
  0.06347613 = sum of:
    0.015992278 = weight(_text_:information in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015992278 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
    0.04748385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04748385 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.5, S.287-299

0.014047874 = product of:
  0.12643087 = sum of:
    0.12643087 = product of:
      0.25286174 = sum of:
        0.25286174 = weight(_text_:theories in 3836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25286174 = score(doc=3836,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            1.1949167 = fieldWeight in 3836, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3836)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.014020857 = product of:
  0.063093856 = sum of:
    0.021104332 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021104332 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.04198952 = product of:
      0.08397904 = sum of:
        0.08397904 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08397904 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.013961128 = product of:
  0.06282508 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.013137113 = product of:
  0.059117008 = sum of:
    0.053840924 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053840924 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
    0.005276083 = weight(_text_:information in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005276083 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.

0.012833523 = product of:
  0.05775085 = sum of:
    0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007914125 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
    0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049836725 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479