Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028513474 = product of:
  0.17108084 = sum of:
    0.17108084 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17108084 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.7462918 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.028513474 = product of:
  0.17108084 = sum of:
    0.17108084 = weight(_text_:relationship in 7776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17108084 = score(doc=7776,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.7462918 = fieldWeight in 7776, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7776)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.02444012 = product of:
  0.14664072 = sum of:
    0.14664072 = weight(_text_:relationship in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14664072 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6396787 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

0.015173154 = product of:
  0.09103892 = sum of:
    0.09103892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09103892 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.014401479 = product of:
  0.08640887 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=5644,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity

0.014401479 = product of:
  0.08640887 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Each section header of an article has its distinct communicative function. Citations from distinct sections may be different regarding citing motivation. In this paper, we grouped section headers with similar functions as a structural function and defined the distribution of citations from structural functions for a paper as its citation structure. We aim to explore the relationship between citation structure and the future impact of a publication and disclose the relative importance among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, we proposed two citation counting methods and a citation life cycle identification method, by which the regression data were built. Subsequently, we employed a ridge regression model to predict the future impact of the paper and analyzed the relative weights of regressors. Based on documents collected from the Association for Computational Linguistics Anthology website, our empirical experiments disclosed that functional structure features improve the prediction accuracy of citation count prediction and that there exist differences among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, at the early stage of citation lifetime, citations from Introduction and Method are particularly important for perceiving future impact of papers, and citations from Result and Conclusion are also vital. However, early accumulation of citations from the Background seems less important.

0.014401479 = product of:
  0.08640887 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=1033,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=8219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=4592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.011521183 = product of:
  0.0691271 = sum of:
    0.0691271 = weight(_text_:relationship in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0691271 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30154744 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.

0.01072904 = product of:
  0.06437424 = sum of:
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, 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=613)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=4775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Authors' motivation for citing documents are addressed through a literature review and an empirical study. Replicating an investigation in psychology, the works of 2 highly-cited authors in the discipline of communication were identified, and all of the authros who cited them during the period 1995-1997 were surveyed. The instrument posed 32 questions about why a certain document was cited, plus questions about the citer's relationship to the cited author and document. Most findings were similar to the psychology study, including a tendency to cite 'concept markers' representing a genre of work. Authors in communication were more likely to have an interpersonal connection to cited authors, and to cite literatire reviews - their most common reason for citation. 3 types of judgements about cited works were found to best predict citation: (1) that the work was novel, well-known, and a concept-marker; (2) that citing it might promote the authority of one's own work; and (3) that the work deserved criticism. Suggestions are made for further research, especially regarding the anomalous role of creativity in cited works