Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Rousseau, R.: Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator (2012) 0.03 
    0.02935275 = product of:
  0.0978425 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4993, 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=4993)
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
    0.020925045 = product of:
      0.04185009 = sum of:
        0.04185009 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04185009 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    We introduce the notions of congruous indicator of relative performance and congruous indicator of absolute performance. These notions are very similar to the notions of independence and consistency, yet slightly different. It is shown that percentile rank scores, as recently introduced by Leydesdorff, Bornmann, Mutz, and Opthof (2011), are strictly congruous indicators of relative performance, and similarly, that the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3), introduced by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011), is a strictly congruous indicator of absolute performance. Our analysis highlights the challenge of finding adequate axioms for ranking and for research evaluation.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.416-420
  2. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.03 
    0.02816897 = product of:
  0.09389657 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4384, 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=4384)
    0.059646662 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059646662 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.025364986 = product of:
      0.05072997 = sum of:
        0.05072997 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05072997 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157
  3. Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002) 0.03 
    0.027465673 = product of:
  0.09155224 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 816, 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=816)
    0.049705554 = weight(_text_:ranking in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049705554 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
    0.036611203 = product of:
      0.073222406 = sum of:
        0.073222406 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073222406 = score(doc=816,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.5676121 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"
  4. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.03 
    0.026582826 = product of:
  0.06645706 = sum of:
    0.0059232777 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059232777 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012436057 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012436057 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
    0.03976444 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03976444 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.008333288 = product of:
      0.016666576 = sum of:
        0.016666576 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016666576 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  5. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007) 0.02 
    0.015383491 = product of:
  0.076917455 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 50, 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=50)
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785
  6. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A theoretical study of recall and precision using a topological approach to information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.012850649 = product of:
  0.06425324 = sum of:
    0.014509009 = weight(_text_:information in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014509009 = score(doc=3267,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
    0.04974423 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04974423 = score(doc=3267,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Topologies for information retrieval systems are generated by certain subsets, called retrievals. Shows how recall and precision can be expressed using only retrievals. Investigates different types of retrieval systems: both threshold systems and close match systems and both optimal and non optimal retrieval. Highlights the relation with the hypergeometric and some non-standard distributions
    Source
    Information processing and management. 34(1998) nos.2/3, S.191-218
  7. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Topological aspects of information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.012271832 = product of:
  0.061359156 = sum of:
    0.012695382 = weight(_text_:information in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012695382 = score(doc=2157,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2157, 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=2157)
    0.048663773 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048663773 = score(doc=2157,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.13, S.1144-1160
  8. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.01 
    0.010988208 = product of:
  0.05494104 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
    0.049705554 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049705554 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529
  9. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Duality in information retrieval and the hypegeometric distribution (1997) 0.01 
    0.009404208 = product of:
  0.04702104 = sum of:
    0.011846555 = weight(_text_:information in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011846555 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    0.03517448 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03517448 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Asserts that duality is an important topic in informetrics, especially in connection with the classical informetric laws. Yet this concept is less studied in information retrieval. It deals with the unification or symmetry between queries and documents, search formulation versus indexing, and relevant versus retrieved documents. Elaborates these ideas and highlights the connection with the hypergeometric distribution
  10. Rousseau, R.: Citation data as a proxy for quality or scientific influence are at best PAC (probably approximately correct) (2016) 0.01 
    0.008439353 = product of:
  0.04219676 = sum of:
    0.00837678 = weight(_text_:information in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00837678 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3210, 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=3210)
    0.03381998 = product of:
      0.06763996 = sum of:
        0.06763996 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06763996 = score(doc=3210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.5243376 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3092-3094
  11. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012) 0.01 
    0.0062608393 = product of:
  0.031304196 = sum of:
    0.010470974 = weight(_text_:information in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470974 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
    0.02083322 = product of:
      0.04166644 = sum of:
        0.04166644 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04166644 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    14. 2.2012 12:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429
  12. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks (2003) 0.00 
    0.0040363893 = product of:
  0.020181946 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=5157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5157, 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=5157)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=5157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 5157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Measurement of the degree of interconnectedness in graph like networks of hyperlinks or citations can indicate the existence of research fields and assist in comparative evaluation of research efforts. In this issue we begin with Egghe and Rousseau who review compactness measures and investigate the compactness of a network as a weighted graph with dissimilarity values characterizing the arcs between nodes. They make use of a generalization of the Botofogo, Rivlin, Shneiderman, (BRS) compaction measure which treats the distance between unreachable nodes not as infinity but rather as the number of nodes in the network. The dissimilarity values are determined by summing the reciprocals of the weights of the arcs in the shortest chain between two nodes where no weight is smaller than one. The BRS measure is then the maximum value for the sum of the dissimilarity measures less the actual sum divided by the difference between the maximum and minimum. The Wiener index, the sum of all elements in the dissimilarity matrix divided by two, is then computed for Small's particle physics co-citation data as well as the BRS measure, the dissimilarity values and shortest paths. The compactness measure for the weighted network is smaller than for the un-weighted. When the bibliographic coupling network is utilized it is shown to be less compact than the co-citation network which indicates that the new measure produces results that confirm to an obvious case.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.193-202
  13. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.00 
    0.0037565033 = product of:
  0.018782517 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  14. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.00 
    0.0037565033 = product of:
  0.018782517 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  15. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.00 
    0.0037308172 = product of:
  0.03730817 = sum of:
    0.03730817 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03730817 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3007, 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=3007)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
  16. Rousseau, R.: Robert Fairthorne and the empirical power laws (2005) 0.00 
    0.0020925046 = product of:
  0.020925045 = sum of:
    0.020925045 = product of:
      0.04185009 = sum of:
        0.04185009 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04185009 = score(doc=4398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 4398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Aims to review Fairthorne's classic article "Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford-Zipf-Mandelbrot) for bibliometric description and prediction" (Journal of Documentation, Vol. 25, pp. 319-343, 1969), as part of a series marking the Journal of Documentation's 60th anniversary. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of article content, qualitative evaluation of its subsequent impact, citation analysis, and diffusion analysis. Findings - The content, further developments and influence on the field of informetrics of this landmark paper are explained. Originality/value - A review is given of the contents of Fairthorne's original article and its influence on the field of informetrics. Its transdisciplinary reception is measured through a diffusion analysis.
  17. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Introduction to informetrics : quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science (1990) 0.00 
    0.0016389668 = product of:
  0.016389668 = sum of:
    0.016389668 = weight(_text_:information in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016389668 = score(doc=1515,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    COMPASS
    Information science / Statistical mathematics
    LCSH
    Information science / Statistical methods
    Subject
    Information science / Statistical mathematics
    Information science / Statistical methods
  18. Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Metric-wiseness (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014659365 = product of:
  0.014659365 = sum of:
    0.014659365 = weight(_text_:information in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014659365 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2389
  19. Rousseau, R.; Ye, F.Y.: ¬A proposal for a dynamic h-type index (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014509009 = product of:
  0.014509009 = sum of:
    0.014509009 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014509009 = score(doc=2351,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1853-1855
  20. Rousseau, R.: Bradford curves (1994) 0.00 
    0.001256517 = product of:
  0.0125651695 = sum of:
    0.0125651695 = weight(_text_:information in 7304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125651695 = score(doc=7304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 7304, 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=7304)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.2, S.267-277

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 50
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications