Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=376,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

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

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=11,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=398)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual model of the field of informetrics. Specifically, the paper argues that informetrics comprises the study of entities in three dimensions: the social, documentary and epistemic dimensions containing respectively agents, documents, and concepts or cognitions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper outlines a conceptual model, drawing on earlier work by Kochen, Leydesdorff, Borgman and others. Subsequently, each dimension and interdimensional relation is analyzed and discussed. Findings - It is shown that not every study necessarily involves each of the three dimensions, but that the field as a whole cannot be reduced to one or two of them. Moreover, the dimensions should be kept separate but they are not completely independent. The paper discusses what kinds of relations exist between the dimensions. Special attention is given to the nature of the citation relation within this framework. The paper also considers the place of concepts like mapping, proximity and influence in the model. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual paper is a first step. Multi-relational networks may be a key instrument to further the study of the interplay between the three dimensions. Originality/value - The paper provides a framework to characterise informetric studies and makes the characteristics of the field explicit.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Semantic Web has been criticized for not being semantic. This article examines the questions of why and how the Web of Data, expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF), has come to be known as the Semantic Web. Contrary to previous papers, we deliberately take a descriptive stance and do not start from preconceived ideas about the nature of semantics. Instead, we mainly base our analysis on early design documents of the (Semantic) Web. The main determining factor is shown to be link typing, coupled with the influence of online metadata. Both factors already were present in early web standards and drafts. Our findings indicate that the Semantic Web is directly linked to older artificial intelligence work, despite occasional claims to the contrary. Because of link typing, the Semantic Web can be considered an example of a semantic network. Originally network representations of the meaning of natural language utterances, semantic networks have eventually come to refer to any networks with typed (usually directed) links. We discuss possible causes for this shift and suggest that it may be due to confounding paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic relations.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics

0.00328138 = product of:
  0.02625104 = sum of:
    0.02625104 = product of:
      0.05250208 = sum of:
        0.05250208 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05250208 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22