Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037682008 = product of:
  0.11304602 = sum of:
    0.102798335 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102798335 = score(doc=5697,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.5070964 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
    0.010247685 = product of:
      0.030743055 = sum of:
        0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743055 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Wissenschaftler wollen herausgefunden haben, dass das wichtige Ranking nach Zitierhäufigkeit und dem Journal Impact Factor fehlerhaft ist. Man sollte ja denken, dass Programme, seien sie nun KI-gestützt oder nicht, vorurteilslos nach bestimmten Kriterien etwa ein Ranking erstellen können. Aber es kommen immer wieder unbedachte Einflüsse ins Spiel, die lange Zeit unbemerkt bleiben können. Bei KI-Programmen ist in letzter Zeit klar geworden, dass die Datenauswahl eine verzerrende Rolle spielen kann, die zu seltsamen Ergebnissen führt.

Date

29. 6.2019 17:46:17

0.00605745 = product of:
  0.0363447 = sum of:
    0.0363447 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0363447 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.17928566 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.

0.0039894576 = product of:
  0.023936745 = sum of:
    0.023936745 = product of:
      0.07181023 = sum of:
        0.07181023 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07181023 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.003944336 = product of:
  0.023666015 = sum of:
    0.023666015 = product of:
      0.07099804 = sum of:
        0.07099804 = weight(_text_:29 in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07099804 = score(doc=5624,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5385337 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2019 17:46:17
4. 8.2019 19:52:29

Issue

[29. Juli 2019].