Search (193 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993) 0.03 
    0.028722264 = product of:
  0.06701861 = sum of:
    0.010251419 = weight(_text_:information in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010251419 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3741, 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=3741)
    0.043046176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043046176 = score(doc=3741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3741, 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=3741)
    0.013721022 = product of:
      0.041163065 = sum of:
        0.041163065 = weight(_text_:29 in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041163065 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
    Source
    Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.95-112
  2. Mendez, A.: Some considerations on the retrieval of literature based on citations (1978) 0.02 
    0.023251237 = product of:
  0.081379324 = sum of:
    0.020502837 = weight(_text_:information in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020502837 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
    0.06087649 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06087649 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Information scientist. 12(1978), S.67-71
  3. MacCain, K.W.: Descriptor and citation retrieval in the medical behavioral sciences literature : retrieval overlaps and novelty distribution (1989) 0.02 
    0.018173482 = product of:
  0.063607186 = sum of:
    0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007688564 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2290, 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=2290)
    0.055918623 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055918623 = score(doc=2290,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.110-114
  4. Yoon, L.L.: ¬The performance of cited references as an approach to information retrieval (1994) 0.02 
    0.01761914 = product of:
  0.06166699 = sum of:
    0.015536481 = weight(_text_:information in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015536481 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 8219, 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=8219)
    0.046130512 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046130512 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.5, S.287-299
  5. Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002) 0.02 
    0.017438427 = product of:
  0.061034493 = sum of:
    0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015377128 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4175, 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=4175)
    0.045657367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045657367 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4175, 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=4175)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  6. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.02 
    0.015711686 = product of:
  0.0366606 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
    0.019023903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019023903 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.008575639 = product of:
      0.025726916 = sum of:
        0.025726916 = weight(_text_:29 in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025726916 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:01:01
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308
  7. Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.02 
    0.015690735 = product of:
  0.054917566 = sum of:
    0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015377128 = score(doc=444,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.03954044 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954044 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
  8. Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.2: the optimal, cluster-based retrieval performance of composite representations (1991) 0.02 
    0.015227885 = product of:
  0.053297594 = sum of:
    0.010251419 = weight(_text_:information in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010251419 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4842, 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=4842)
    0.043046176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043046176 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4842, 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=4842)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991) no.9, S.676-684
  9. Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998) 0.01 
    0.014385968 = product of:
  0.050350886 = sum of:
    0.012685482 = weight(_text_:information in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012685482 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.037665404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037665404 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing
  10. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.013628007 = product of:
  0.04769802 = sum of:
    0.020502837 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020502837 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.027195185 = product of:
      0.081585556 = sum of:
        0.081585556 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081585556 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  11. Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000) 0.01 
    0.013617646 = product of:
  0.04766176 = sum of:
    0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015377128 = score(doc=4593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
    0.032284632 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284632 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching
    Content
    Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.485-486
  12. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.0125429 = product of:
  0.029266765 = sum of:
    0.0072488473 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072488473 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
    0.015219122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015219122 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
    0.0067987964 = product of:
      0.020396389 = sum of:
        0.020396389 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020396389 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    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
  13. Tho, Q.T.; Hui, S.C.; Fong, A.C.M.: ¬A citation-based document retrieval system for finding research expertise (2007) 0.01 
    0.012330831 = product of:
  0.043157905 = sum of:
    0.010873271 = weight(_text_:information in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010873271 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 956, 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=956)
    0.032284632 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284632 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.248-264
  14. Pao, M.L.; Worthen, D.B.: Retrieval effectiveness by semantic and citation searching (1989) 0.01 
    0.011420914 = product of:
  0.039973196 = sum of:
    0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007688564 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2288, 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=2288)
    0.032284632 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284632 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.226-235
  15. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.01 
    0.010857528 = product of:
  0.038001347 = sum of:
    0.011097487 = weight(_text_:information in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011097487 = score(doc=329,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 329, 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=329)
    0.02690386 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02690386 = score(doc=329,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.947-957
  16. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.010529042 = product of:
  0.036851645 = sum of:
    0.012814272 = weight(_text_:information in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012814272 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
    0.024037374 = product of:
      0.07211212 = sum of:
        0.07211212 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07211212 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
    Source
    Information Research. 6(2001), no.2
  17. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.01 
    0.010327334 = product of:
  0.036145665 = sum of:
    0.013316983 = weight(_text_:information in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013316983 = score(doc=1080,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.022828683 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022828683 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.5, S.689-706
  18. Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993) 0.01 
    0.009919463 = product of:
  0.03471812 = sum of:
    0.015694214 = weight(_text_:information in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015694214 = score(doc=5644,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
    0.019023903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019023903 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(1993) no.9, S.543-552
  19. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis (2006) 0.01 
    0.0095174275 = product of:
  0.033310995 = sum of:
    0.006407136 = weight(_text_:information in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006407136 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 61, 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=61)
    0.02690386 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02690386 = score(doc=61,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.
  20. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006) 0.01 
    0.0095174275 = product of:
  0.033310995 = sum of:
    0.006407136 = weight(_text_:information in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006407136 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 225, 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=225)
    0.02690386 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02690386 = score(doc=225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 178
  • d 13
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 185
  • el 6
  • m 5
  • s 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications