Search (241 results, page 2 of 13)

0.008295055 = product of:
  0.058065377 = sum of:
    0.058065377 = product of:
      0.116130754 = sum of:
        0.116130754 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116130754 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.6418954 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.008295055 = product of:
  0.058065377 = sum of:
    0.058065377 = product of:
      0.116130754 = sum of:
        0.116130754 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116130754 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.6418954 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.

0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Inhalt: Metrics in Research - For better or worse? / Jozica Dolenc, Philippe Hünenberger Oliver Renn - A brief visual history of research metrics / Oliver Renn, Jozica Dolenc, Joachim Schnabl - Bibliometry: The wizard of O's / Philippe Hünenberger - The grip of bibliometrics - A student perspective / Matthias Tinzl - Honesty and transparency to taxpayers is the long-term fundament for stable university funding / Wendelin J. Stark - Beyond metrics: Managing the performance of your work / Charlie Rapple - Scientific profiling instead of bibliometrics: Key performance indicators of the future / Rafael Ball - More knowledge, less numbers / Carl Philipp Rosenau - Do we really need BIBLIO-metrics to evaluate individual researchers? / Rüdiger Mutz - Using research metrics responsibly and effectively as a researcher / Peter I. Darroch, Lisa H. Colledge - Metrics in research: More (valuable) questions than answers / Urs Hugentobler - Publication of research results: Use and abuse / Wilfred F. van Gunsteren - Wanted: Transparent algorithms, interpretation skills, common sense / Eva E. Wille - Impact factors, the h-index, and citation hype - Metrics in research from the point of view of a journal editor / Renato Zenobi - Rashomon or metrics in a publisher's world / Gabriella Karger - The impact factor and I: A love-hate relationship / Jean-Christophe Leroux - Personal experiences bringing altmetrics to the academic market / Ben McLeish - Fatally attracted by numbers? / Oliver Renn - On computable numbers / Gerd Folkers, Laura Folkers - ScienceMatters - Single observation science publishing and linking observations to create an internet of science / Lawrence Rajendran.

0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=5879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 5879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5879)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

"Haben die "Daten" bzw. die "Datenwissenschaft" (Data Science) die "Information" bzw. die Informationswissenschaft obsolet gemacht? Hat die "Data Science" mit ihren KI-gestützten Instrumenten die ökonomische und technische Herrschaft über die "Daten" und damit auch über die "Informationen" und das "Wissen" übernommen? Die meist in der Informatik/Mathematik beheimatete "Data Science" hat die wissenschaftliche Führungsrolle übernommen, "Daten" in "Informationen" und "Wissen" zu transferieren." "Der Wandel von analoger zu digitaler Informationsverarbeitung hat die Informationswissenschaft im Grunde obsolet gemacht. Heute steht die Befassung mit der Kategorie "Daten" und deren kausaler Zusammenhang mit der "Wissens"-Generierung (Erkennung von Mustern und Zusammenhängen, Prognosefähigkeit usw.) und neuronalen Verarbeitung und Speicherung im Zentrum der Forschung." "Wäre die Wissenstreppe nach North auch für die Informationswissenschaft gültig, würde sie erkennen, dass die Befassung mit "Daten" und die durch Vorwissen ermöglichte Interpretation von "Daten" erst die Voraussetzungen schaffen, "Informationen" als "kontextualisierte Daten" zu verstehen, um "Informationen" strukturieren, darstellen, erzeugen und suchen zu können."

0.0070655947 = product of:
  0.04945916 = sum of:
    0.04945916 = product of:
      0.14837748 = sum of:
        0.14837748 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14837748 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31681007 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=3443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 3443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=5346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=528,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0069125453 = product of:
  0.048387814 = sum of:
    0.048387814 = product of:
      0.09677563 = sum of:
        0.09677563 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09677563 = score(doc=536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5349128 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0068430714 = product of:
  0.047901496 = sum of:
    0.047901496 = product of:
      0.09580299 = sum of:
        0.09580299 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09580299 = score(doc=4428,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5295367 = fieldWeight in 4428, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Irrtum 1: Die Anwendung von Ethik kann man in Computerprogrammen formulieren - Irrtum 2: Daten erzeugen Wahrheit, und falls nicht, braucht man einfach mehr Daten - Irrtum 3: In 20 Jahren gibt es eine künstliche Intelligenz, die genauso gut wie oder besser ist als menschliche - Irrtum 4: Diskriminierung durch Algorithmen ist schlimmer als Diskriminierung durch Menschen - Irrtum 5: Gesetze und Verträge können in Code ausgedrückt werden, um ihre Anwendung zu standardisieren - Irrtum 6: Digitale Freiheit drückt sich in der vollständigen Autonomie des Individuums aus.

0.006842271 = product of:
  0.047895893 = sum of:
    0.047895893 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047895893 = score(doc=4393,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.22375701 = fieldWeight in 4393, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4393)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Zusätzlich zu diesen Überlegungen treten sprachphilosophische Grundsatzüberlegungen: Jeder semantische Definitionsversuch einer technischen Ontologie muss durch Verwendung von Metasprachen erfolgen - letztlich kommt man hier wahrscheinlich nicht ohne die Verwendung natürlicher Sprache aus. Sehr schnell wird man also in einen unendlichen Regress verwiesen, wenn man versucht, technische Ontologien 'vollständig' durch weitere technische Ontologien zu beschreiben. Im Fortgang der Argumentation wird dann aufgezeigt, dass eine wesentliche Herausforderung bei technischen Ontologien also darin liegt, angesichts der Vielschichtigkeit menschlichen Wissens die Möglichkeiten (aber auch notwendigen Begrenzungen) symbolvermittelter Wissensrepräsentationen zu verbinden mit Formen der situativen und intersubjektiven Interpretation dieser symbolhaften Repräsentationen in sozialen Prozessen und in natürlicher Sprache. Nur so kann man auch dem Problem des skizzierten 'infiniten Regresses' begegnen, wonach die Bedeutung einer (technischen) Ontologie nie vollständig wieder selbst durch (technische) Ontologien beschrieben werden kann.
In diesem Sinne könnte auch Wissensaustausch und Wissensmanagement in Organisationen auf Basis (technischer) Ontologien eine neue Bedeutung erhalten im Sinne einer gezielten Ermöglichung sozialer Austauschprozesse unter Nutzung formaler Wissensrepräsentationen statt der technologiezentrierten Sichtweise, wonach bereits das Wissensrepräsentationssystem mit Wissensaustausch gleichzusetzen wäre. Letztlich haben die in (formalen) Wissensrepräsentationssystemen dargestellten technischen Ontologien alleine nämlich keine tiefere Bedeutung und auch keinen Sinn. Beides entsteht erst durch eine entsprechende Einbettung und Interpretation dieser Repräsentationen in konkreten lebensweltlichen Zusammenhängen. Und was die Menschen in diesem Interpretations-und Rekontextualisierungsprozess dann aus den zeichenvermittelten technischen Ontologien machen, ist glücklicherweise eine Frage, die sich einer vollständigen Behandlung und Abbildung in technischen Ontologien entzieht."

0.005865489 = product of:
  0.04105842 = sum of:
    0.04105842 = product of:
      0.08211684 = sum of:
        0.08211684 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08211684 = score(doc=4322,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.4538886 = fieldWeight in 4322, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4322)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Inhalt: 1. Einführung - 2. Wissensmanagement - 3. Information Retrieval - 3.1. Methoden und Techniken - 3.2. Information Retrieval in der Anwendung - 4. Semantische Ansätze - 4.1. Wissen modellieren - Ontologie - 4.2. Neues Wissen inferieren - 5. Knowledge Retrieval in der Anwendung - 6. Zukunftsaussichten - 7. Fazit

0.005865489 = product of:
  0.04105842 = sum of:
    0.04105842 = product of:
      0.08211684 = sum of:
        0.08211684 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08211684 = score(doc=4333,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.4538886 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Das Semantic Web bezeichnet ein erweitertes World Wide Web (WWW), das die Bedeutung von präsentierten Inhalten in neuen standardisierten Sprachen wie RDF Schema und OWL modelliert. Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Aspekt des Information Retrieval, d.h. es wird untersucht, in wie weit Methoden der Informationssuche sich auf modelliertes Wissen übertragen lassen. Die kennzeichnenden Merkmale von IR-Systemen wie vage Anfragen sowie die Unterstützung unsicheren Wissens werden im Kontext des Semantic Web behandelt. Im Fokus steht die Suche nach Fakten innerhalb einer Wissensdomäne, die entweder explizit modelliert sind oder implizit durch die Anwendung von Inferenz abgeleitet werden können. Aufbauend auf der an der Universität Duisburg-Essen entwickelten Retrievalmaschine PIRE wird die Anwendung unsicherer Inferenz mit probabilistischer Prädikatenlogik (pDatalog) implementiert.

0.00580586 = product of:
  0.040641017 = sum of:
    0.040641017 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040641017 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.18986413 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, 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=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, 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=5837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, 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=4085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39