Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

0.01599314 = product of:
  0.04797942 = sum of:
    0.01309174 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01309174 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.03488768 = product of:
      0.052331515 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.026047537 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026047537 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962

0.014714979 = product of:
  0.044144936 = sum of:
    0.009257258 = weight(_text_:information in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009257258 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.03488768 = product of:
      0.052331515 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
        0.026047537 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026047537 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

Footnote

Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558

0.00897198 = product of:
  0.026915938 = sum of:
    0.01463701 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01463701 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.0122789275 = product of:
      0.03683678 = sum of:
        0.03683678 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03683678 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442

0.008121804 = product of:
  0.024365412 = sum of:
    0.010473392 = weight(_text_:information in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010473392 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
    0.01389202 = product of:
      0.04167606 = sum of:
        0.04167606 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04167606 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406

0.0077994457 = product of:
  0.023398336 = sum of:
    0.01463701 = weight(_text_:information in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01463701 = score(doc=6116,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.

Date

21.10.2006 19:29:49

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1644-1654

0.0072580846 = product of:
  0.021774253 = sum of:
    0.01309174 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01309174 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.008682513 = product of:
      0.026047537 = sum of:
        0.026047537 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026047537 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644

0.0072074337 = product of:
  0.0216223 = sum of:
    0.0111087095 = weight(_text_:information in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0111087095 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2536, 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=2536)
    0.010513592 = product of:
      0.031540774 = sum of:
        0.031540774 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031540774 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, 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=2536)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.

Date

14. 8.2004 10:30:29

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.693-708

0.0072074337 = product of:
  0.0216223 = sum of:
    0.0111087095 = weight(_text_:information in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0111087095 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
    0.010513592 = product of:
      0.031540774 = sum of:
        0.031540774 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031540774 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

Date

27.12.2015 11:29:37

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199

0.0071759084 = product of:
  0.021527724 = sum of:
    0.0111087095 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0111087095 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
    0.010419015 = product of:
      0.031257045 = sum of:
        0.031257045 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257045 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966

0.0071433587 = product of:
  0.021430075 = sum of:
    0.009164219 = weight(_text_:information in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009164219 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 364, 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=364)
    0.012265856 = product of:
      0.03679757 = sum of:
        0.03679757 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03679757 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

3. 6.2007 16:37:29

0.0066997027 = product of:
  0.020099107 = sum of:
    0.01133778 = weight(_text_:information in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01133778 = score(doc=1236,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Web links have been studied by information scientists for at least six years but it is only in the past two that clear evidence has emerged to show that counts of links to scholarly Web spaces (universities and departments) can correlate significantly with research measures, giving some credence to their use for the investigation of scholarly communication. This paper reports an a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. An empirical approach is used: collecting data and testing for significant patterns. The specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors, two variables previously discovered to be related. A new methodology for data collection is also introduced that uses the Internet Archive to obtain an earliest known creation date for Web sites. The results show that both site age and site content are significant factors for the disciplines studied: library and information science, and law. Comparisons between the two fields also show disciplinary differences in Web site characteristics. Scholars and publishers should be particularly aware that richer content an a journal's Web site tends to generate links and thus the traffic to the site.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38

0.0061228788 = product of:
  0.018368635 = sum of:
    0.007855045 = weight(_text_:information in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007855045 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1813, 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=1813)
    0.010513592 = product of:
      0.031540774 = sum of:
        0.031540774 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031540774 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, 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=1813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:29:49

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889

0.0060913535 = product of:
  0.01827406 = sum of:
    0.007855045 = weight(_text_:information in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007855045 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
    0.010419015 = product of:
      0.031257045 = sum of:
        0.031257045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257045 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418

0.0060913535 = product of:
  0.01827406 = sum of:
    0.007855045 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007855045 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
    0.010419015 = product of:
      0.031257045 = sum of:
        0.031257045 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257045 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050

0.0060913535 = product of:
  0.01827406 = sum of:
    0.007855045 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007855045 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
    0.010419015 = product of:
      0.031257045 = sum of:
        0.031257045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257045 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973

0.006006195 = product of:
  0.018018585 = sum of:
    0.009257258 = weight(_text_:information in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009257258 = score(doc=4465,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

Date

4. 7.2011 19:39:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129

0.0059799235 = product of:
  0.01793977 = sum of:
    0.009257258 = weight(_text_:information in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009257258 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.008682513 = product of:
      0.026047537 = sum of:
        0.026047537 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026047537 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13464698 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816

0.0051023993 = product of:
  0.015307197 = sum of:
    0.00654587 = weight(_text_:information in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00654587 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 63, 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=63)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.616-629

0.0051023993 = product of:
  0.015307197 = sum of:
    0.00654587 = weight(_text_:information in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00654587 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1331, 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=1331)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1615-1626

0.0051023993 = product of:
  0.015307197 = sum of:
    0.00654587 = weight(_text_:information in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00654587 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.067498945 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03845047 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3440, 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=3440)
    0.008761327 = product of:
      0.02628398 = sum of:
        0.02628398 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02628398 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13525672 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03845047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:45

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.762-779