Search (1196 results, page 1 of 60)

0.23128454 = product of:
  0.6475967 = sum of:
    0.023132863 = weight(_text_:web in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023132863 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15611596 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15611596 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20833312 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15611596 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15611596 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20833312 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15611596 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15611596 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20833312 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15611596 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15611596 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20833312 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.03286336 = product of:
  0.11502176 = sum of:
    0.045902856 = weight(_text_:web in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045902856 = score(doc=3090,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.04711391 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04711391 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.35650903 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.007099477 = weight(_text_:information in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007099477 = score(doc=3090,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Recent Web-searching and -mining tools are combining text and link analysis to improve ranking and crawling algorithms. The central assumption behind such approaches is that there is a correiation between the graph structure of the Web and the text and meaning of pages. Here I formalize and empirically evaluate two general conjectures drawing connections from link information to lexical and semantic Web content. The link-content conjecture states that a page is similar to the pages that link to it, and the link-cluster conjecture that pages about the same topic are clustered together. These conjectures are offen simply assumed to hold, and Web search tools are built an such assumptions. The present quantitative confirmation sheds light an the connection between the success of the latest Web-mining techniques and the small world topology of the Web, with encouraging implications for the design of better crawling algorithms.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1261-1269

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.01960715 = product of:
  0.068625025 = sum of:
    0.020446755 = weight(_text_:web in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020446755 = score(doc=1259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
    0.008366814 = weight(_text_:information in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008366814 = score(doc=1259,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1259, 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=1259)
    0.012421262 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012421262 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1259, 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=1259)
    0.027390195 = product of:
      0.08217058 = sum of:
        0.08217058 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08217058 = score(doc=1259,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.699098 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This study continues a long history of author cocitation analysis (and more recently, author bibliographic coupling analysis) of the intellectual structure of information science (IS) into the time period 2006 to 2010 (IS 2006-2010). We find that web technologies continue to drive developments, especially at the research front, although perhaps more indirectly than before. A broadening of perspectives is visible in IS 2006-2010, where network science becomes influential and where full-text analysis methods complement traditional computer science influences. Research in the areas of the h-index and mapping of science appears to have been highlights of IS 2006-2011. This study tests and confirms a forecast made previously by comparing knowledge-base and research-front findings for IS 2001-2005, which expected both the information retrieval (IR) systems and webometrics specialties to shrink in 2006 to 2010. A corresponding comparison of the knowledge base and research front of IS 2006-2010 suggests a continuing decline of the IR systems specialty in the near future, but also a considerable (re)growth of the webometrics area after a period of decline from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010, with the latter due perhaps in part to its contribution to an emerging web science.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.995-1006

0.017325398 = product of:
  0.06063889 = sum of:
    0.019397497 = weight(_text_:web in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019397497 = score(doc=3809,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.24187797 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.00561263 = weight(_text_:information in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00561263 = score(doc=3809,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.007452757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007452757 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.028176006 = product of:
      0.042264007 = sum of:
        0.03227596 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03227596 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2746002 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
        0.009988048 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009988048 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260-288

0.01533778 = product of:
  0.053682227 = sum of:
    0.020241255 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020241255 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.008282723 = weight(_text_:information in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008282723 = score(doc=4188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
    0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017389767 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.007768482 = product of:
      0.023305446 = sum of:
        0.023305446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023305446 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245

0.0150129 = product of:
  0.0700602 = sum of:
    0.055524275 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055524275 = score(doc=5779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.42014992 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5779, 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=5779)
    0.01035252 = product of:
      0.031057559 = sum of:
        0.031057559 = weight(_text_:2010 in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031057559 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.5/6, S.241-248

0.014693491 = product of:
  0.06856962 = sum of:
    0.038794994 = weight(_text_:web in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038794994 = score(doc=2571,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
    0.008695048 = weight(_text_:information in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008695048 = score(doc=2571,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2571, 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=2571)
    0.021079581 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021079581 = score(doc=2571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2571, 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=2571)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.515-526

0.014605832 = product of:
  0.05112041 = sum of:
    0.024536107 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024536107 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.0050200885 = weight(_text_:information in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050200885 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
    0.006658699 = product of:
      0.019976096 = sum of:
        0.019976096 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019976096 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.557-570

0.014201253 = product of:
  0.06627251 = sum of:
    0.045720335 = weight(_text_:web in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045720335 = score(doc=4002,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4002, 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=4002)
    0.016368773 = product of:
      0.049106315 = sum of:
        0.049106315 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049106315 = score(doc=4002,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This study explored the feasibility of using Web hyperlink data to study European political Web sites. Ninety-six European Union (EU) political parties belonging to a wide range of ideological, historical, and linguistic backgrounds were included in the study. Various types of data on Web links to party Web sites were collected. The Web colink data were visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS), while the inlink data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance test. The results showed that Web hyperlink data did reflect some political patterns in the EU. The MDS maps showed clusters of political parties along ideological, historical, linguistic, and social lines. Statistical analysis based on inlink counts further confirmed that there was a significant difference along the line of the political history of a country, such that left-wing parties in the former communist countries received considerably fewer inlinks to their Web sites than left-wing parties in countries without a history of communism did. The study demonstrated the possibility of using Web hyperlink data to gain insights into political situations in the EU. This suggests the richness of Web hyperlink data and its potential in studying social-political phenomena.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2109-2121

Year

2010

0.013312589 = product of:
  0.062125415 = sum of:
    0.02891608 = weight(_text_:web in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02891608 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
    0.008366814 = weight(_text_:information in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008366814 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1694, 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=1694)
    0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024842525 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"

0.012779157 = product of:
  0.059636064 = sum of:
    0.045720335 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045720335 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.008366814 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008366814 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.0055489163 = product of:
      0.016646748 = sum of:
        0.016646748 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016646748 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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

0.012692357 = product of:
  0.059231002 = sum of:
    0.04089351 = weight(_text_:web in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04089351 = score(doc=3091,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
    0.005916231 = weight(_text_:information in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005916231 = score(doc=3091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3091, 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=3091)
    0.012421262 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012421262 = score(doc=3091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3091, 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=3091)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1239-1249

0.012692357 = product of:
  0.059231002 = sum of:
    0.04089351 = weight(_text_:web in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04089351 = score(doc=3384,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.005916231 = weight(_text_:information in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005916231 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3384, 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=3384)
    0.012421262 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012421262 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3384, 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=3384)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52

0.012620864 = product of:
  0.058897365 = sum of:
    0.03541482 = weight(_text_:web in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03541482 = score(doc=4450,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
    0.005916231 = weight(_text_:information in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005916231 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4450, 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=4450)
    0.017566316 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017566316 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4450, 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=4450)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

A layered approach for identifying communities in the Web is presented and explored by applying the flake exact community identification algorithm to the UK academic Web. Although community or topic identification is a common task in information retrieval, a new perspective is developed by: the application of alternative document models, shifting the focus from individual pages to aggregated collections based upon Web directories, domains and entire sites; the removal of internal site links; and the adaptation of a new fast algorithm to allow fully-automated community identification using all possible single starting points. The overall topology of the graphs in the three least-aggregated layers was first investigated and found to include a large number of isolated points but, surprisingly, with most of the remainder being in one huge connected component, exact proportions varying by layer. The community identification process then found that the number of communities far exceeded the number of topological components, indicating that community identification is a potentially useful technique, even with random starting points. Both the number and size of communities identified was dependent on the parameter of the algorithm, with very different results being obtained in each case. In conclusion, the UK academic Web is embedded with layers of non-trivial communities and, if it is not unique in this, then there is the promise of improved results for information retrieval algorithms that can exploit this additional structure, and the application of the technique directly to partially automate Web metrics tasks such as that of finding all pages related to a given subject hosted by a single country's universities.

0.012298776 = product of:
  0.08609143 = sum of:
    0.029811028 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029811028 = score(doc=5069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5069, 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=5069)
    0.0562804 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0562804 = score(doc=5069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.55104816 = fieldWeight in 5069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5069)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Imprint

Frankfurt : Indeks

0.0117848925 = product of:
  0.054996163 = sum of:
    0.030050473 = weight(_text_:web in 1720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030050473 = score(doc=1720,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 1720, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1720)
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 1720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=1720,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1720, 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=1720)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=1720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1720, 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=1720)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Using an enriched author cocitation analysis (ACA), we map information science (IS) for 1996-2005, a decade of explosive development of the World Wide Web, to examine its development since the landmark study by White and McCain (1998). The Web, we find, has had a profound impact on IS, driving the creation of new disciplines and revitalization or obsolescence of old, and most importantly, bridging the chasm between the literatures and retrieval IS camps. Simultaneously, the development of IS towards cognitive aspects has intensified. Our study enriches classic ACA in that it employs both orthogonal and oblique rotations in the factor analysis (FA), and reports both pattern and structure matrices for the latter, thus enabling a comparison between these several FA methods in ACA. Each method provides interesting information not available from the others, we find, especially when results are also visualized in the novel manner we introduce here.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.916-937

0.011378753 = product of:
  0.039825633 = sum of:
    0.011566431 = weight(_text_:web in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011566431 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
    0.010040176 = weight(_text_:information in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040176 = score(doc=610,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
    0.00993701 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00993701 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 610, 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=610)
    0.008282016 = product of:
      0.024846047 = sum of:
        0.024846047 = weight(_text_:2010 in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024846047 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.21138735 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

0.011053432 = product of:
  0.07737402 = sum of:
    0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 8824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01171354 = score(doc=8824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 8824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8824)
    0.06566048 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 8824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06566048 = score(doc=8824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.64288956 = fieldWeight in 8824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8824)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Imprint

Frankfurt : DGD

Source

Qualität und Information: Deutscher Dokumentartag 1993; Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 28.-30.9.1993. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer

0.010857189 = product of:
  0.050666884 = sum of:
    0.024536107 = weight(_text_:web in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024536107 = score(doc=1347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
    0.01122526 = weight(_text_:information in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01122526 = score(doc=1347,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The main fields of research in Library Science and Documentation are identified by quantifying the frequency of appearance and the analysis of co-occurrence of the descriptors assigned to 11,273 indexed works in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database for the 2004-2005 period. The analysis made has enabled three major core research areas to be identified: World Wide Web, Libraries and Education. There are a further 12 areas of research with specific development, one connected with the library sphere and another 11 connected with the World Wide Web and Internet: Networks, Computer Security, Information technologies, Electronic Resources, Electronic Publications, Bibliometrics, Electronic Commerce, Computer applications, Medicine, Searches and Online Information retrieval.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.150-154

0.010655828 = product of:
  0.049727194 = sum of:
    0.008695048 = weight(_text_:information in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008695048 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4910, 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=4910)
    0.02581711 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02581711 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4910, 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=4910)
    0.015215035 = product of:
      0.045645103 = sum of:
        0.045645103 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045645103 = score(doc=4910,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.38834336 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

RSWK

Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation

Subject

Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation

Year

2010