Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008394462 = product of:
  0.03357785 = sum of:
    0.03357785 = product of:
      0.0671557 = sum of:
        0.0671557 = weight(_text_:software in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0671557 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 4544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=4544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 4544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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