Search (370 results, page 1 of 19)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.57 
    0.56619364 = product of:
  1.1952976 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.16382119 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16382119 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21861556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
  0.47368422 = coord(9/19)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Mayr, P.: Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken (2009) 0.03 
    0.027726589 = product of:
  0.17560174 = sum of:
    0.046991456 = weight(_text_:semantische in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046991456 = score(doc=4302,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.33748612 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
    0.040228993 = weight(_text_:suche in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040228993 = score(doc=4302,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.31225976 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
    0.08838129 = weight(_text_:anwendungsbereich in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08838129 = score(doc=4302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22708645 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.38919666 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Trotz großer Dokumentmengen für datenbankübergreifende Literaturrecherchen erwarten akademische Nutzer einen möglichst hohen Anteil an relevanten und qualitativen Dokumenten in den Trefferergebnissen. Insbesondere die Reihenfolge und Struktur der gelisteten Ergebnisse (Ranking) spielt, neben dem direkten Volltextzugriff auf die Dokumente, inzwischen eine entscheidende Rolle beim Design von Suchsystemen. Nutzer erwarten weiterhin flexible Informationssysteme, die es unter anderem zulassen, Einfluss auf das Ranking der Dokumente zu nehmen bzw. alternative Rankingverfahren zu verwenden. In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertverfahren für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die die typischen Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln und damit die Recherchesituation messbar verbessern können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden hier ausführlich beschrieben und im empirischen Teil der Arbeit bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherchen evaluiert. Vorrangiges Ziel der Promotion ist es, zu untersuchen, ob das hier vorgestellte alternative Re-Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing im Anwendungsbereich bibliographischer Datenbanken zum einen operabel ist und zum anderen voraussichtlich gewinnbringend in Informationssystemen eingesetzt und dem Nutzer angeboten werden kann. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben wissenschaftlichen Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Evaluation der Crosskonkordanzen (insgesamt 82 Fragestellungen) zeigt, dass sich die Retrievalergebnisse signifikant für alle Crosskonkordanzen verbessern; es zeigt sich zudem, dass interdisziplinäre Crosskonkordanzen den stärksten (positiven) Effekt auf die Suchergebnisse haben. Die Evaluation des Re-Ranking nach Bradfordizing (insgesamt 164 Fragestellungen) zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzone (Kernzeitschriften) für die meisten Testreihen eine signifikant höhere Precision als Dokumente der Zone 2 und Zone 3 (Peripheriezeitschriften) ergeben. Sowohl für Zeitschriften als auch für Monographien kann dieser Relevanzvorteil nach Bradfordizing auf einer sehr breiten Basis von Themen und Fragestellungen an zwei unabhängigen Dokumentkorpora empirisch nachgewiesen werden.
    Theme
    Semantische Interoperabilität
  3. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.02 
    0.02446686 = product of:
  0.11621758 = sum of:
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
    0.042669293 = weight(_text_:suche in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042669293 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3312015 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    Web of Science
  4. Stuart, D.: Web metrics for library and information professionals (2014) 0.02 
    0.023596529 = product of:
  0.14944468 = sum of:
    0.068002075 = weight(_text_:web in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068002075 = score(doc=2274,freq=82.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.808072 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
            82.0 = termFreq=82.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
    0.068002075 = weight(_text_:web in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068002075 = score(doc=2274,freq=82.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.808072 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
            82.0 = termFreq=82.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
    0.013440539 = weight(_text_:services in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013440539 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.14197156 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    This is a practical guide to using web metrics to measure impact and demonstrate value. The web provides an opportunity to collect a host of different metrics, from those associated with social media accounts and websites to more traditional research outputs. This book is a clear guide for library and information professionals as to what web metrics are available and how to assess and use them to make informed decisions and demonstrate value. As individuals and organizations increasingly use the web in addition to traditional publishing avenues and formats, this book provides the tools to unlock web metrics and evaluate the impact of this content. The key topics covered include: bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics; data collection tools; evaluating impact on the web; evaluating social media impact; investigating relationships between actors; exploring traditional publications in a new environment; web metrics and the web of data; the future of web metrics and the library and information professional. The book will provide a practical introduction to web metrics for a wide range of library and information professionals, from the bibliometrician wanting to demonstrate the wider impact of a researcher's work than can be demonstrated through traditional citations databases, to the reference librarian wanting to measure how successfully they are engaging with their users on Twitter. It will be a valuable tool for anyone who wants to not only understand the impact of content, but demonstrate this impact to others within the organization and beyond.
    Content
    1. Introduction. MetricsIndicators -- Web metrics and Ranganathan's laws of library science -- Web metrics for the library and information professional -- The aim of this book -- The structure of the rest of this book -- 2. Bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics. Web metrics -- Information science metrics -- Web analytics -- Relational and evaluative metrics -- Evaluative web metrics -- Relational web metrics -- Validating the results -- 3. Data collection tools. The anatomy of a URL, web links and the structure of the web -- Search engines 1.0 -- Web crawlers -- Search engines 2.0 -- Post search engine 2.0: fragmentation -- 4. Evaluating impact on the web. Websites -- Blogs -- Wikis -- Internal metrics -- External metrics -- A systematic approach to content analysis -- 5. Evaluating social media impact. Aspects of social network sites -- Typology of social network sites -- Research and tools for specific sites and services -- Other social network sites -- URL shorteners: web analytic links on any site -- General social media impact -- Sentiment analysis -- 6. Investigating relationships between actors. Social network analysis methods -- Sources for relational network analysis -- 7. Exploring traditional publications in a new environment. More bibliographic items -- Full text analysis -- Greater context -- 8. Web metrics and the web of data. The web of data -- Building the semantic web -- Implications of the web of data for web metrics -- Investigating the web of data today -- SPARQL -- Sindice -- LDSpider: an RDF web crawler -- 9. The future of web metrics and the library and information professional. How far we have come -- The future of web metrics -- The future of the library and information professional and web metrics.
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
    Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
    Subject
    Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
    Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
  5. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.02 
    0.021459425 = product of:
  0.101932265 = sum of:
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
    0.05028624 = weight(_text_:suche in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05028624 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3903247 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  6. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.02030604 = product of:
  0.12860492 = sum of:
    0.054702077 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054702077 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.054702077 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054702077 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.019200768 = weight(_text_:services in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019200768 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  7. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.02 
    0.018182298 = product of:
  0.115154564 = sum of:
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
    0.019200768 = weight(_text_:services in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019200768 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.
  8. Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016) 0.02 
    0.016582808 = product of:
  0.10502446 = sum of:
    0.042911842 = weight(_text_:web in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042911842 = score(doc=3384,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.042911842 = weight(_text_:web in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042911842 = score(doc=3384,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.019200768 = weight(_text_:services in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019200768 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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
  9. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.02 
    0.01652968 = product of:
  0.104687974 = sum of:
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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.
  10. Lawrence, S.: Online or Invisible? (2001) 0.01 
    0.014239203 = product of:
  0.09018163 = sum of:
    0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029730197 = score(doc=1063,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029730197 = score(doc=1063,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.03072123 = weight(_text_:services in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03072123 = score(doc=1063,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Content
    The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.
  11. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.014054982 = product of:
  0.08901489 = sum of:
    0.040140353 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040140353 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.040140353 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040140353 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
    Object
    Web of Science
  12. Ingwersen, P.: ¬The calculation of Web impact factors (1998) 0.01 
    0.013414912 = product of:
  0.12744166 = sum of:
    0.06372083 = weight(_text_:web in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06372083 = score(doc=1071,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
    0.06372083 = weight(_text_:web in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06372083 = score(doc=1071,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Reports investigations into the feasibility and reliability of calculating impact factors for web sites, called Web Impact Factors (Web-IF). analyzes a selection of 7 small and medium scale national and 4 large web domains as well as 6 institutional web sites over a series of snapshots taken of the web during a month. Describes the data isolation and calculation methods and discusses the tests. The results thus far demonstrate that Web-IFs are calculable with high confidence for national and sector domains whilst institutional Web-IFs should be approached with caution
  13. Yang, S.; Han, R.; Ding, J.; Song, Y.: ¬The distribution of Web citations (2012) 0.01 
    0.01327732 = product of:
  0.12613454 = sum of:
    0.06306727 = weight(_text_:web in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06306727 = score(doc=2735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
    0.06306727 = weight(_text_:web in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06306727 = score(doc=2735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    A substantial amount of research has focused on the persistence or availability of Web citations. The present study analyzes Web citation distributions. Web citations are defined as the mentions of the URLs of Web pages (Web resources) as references in academic papers. The present paper primarily focuses on the analysis of the URLs of Web citations and uses three sets of data, namely, Set 1 from the Humanities and Social Science Index in China (CSSCI, 1998-2009), Set 2 from the publications of two international computer science societies, Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer (1995-1999), and Set 3 from the medical science database, MEDLINE, of the National Library of Medicine (1994-2006). Web citation distributions are investigated based on Web site types, Web page types, URL frequencies, URL depths, URL lengths, and year of article publication. Results show significant differences in the Web citation distributions among the three data sets. However, when the URLs of Web citations with the same hostnames are aggregated, the distributions in the three data sets are consistent with the power law (the Lotka function).
  14. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.01 
    0.013114684 = product of:
  0.08305967 = sum of:
    0.037162744 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037162744 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.037162744 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037162744 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Object
    Web of Science
  15. Koehler, W.: Web page change and persistence : a four-year longitudinal study (2002) 0.01 
    0.012712067 = product of:
  0.120764636 = sum of:
    0.060382318 = weight(_text_:web in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060382318 = score(doc=203,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.717526 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
    0.060382318 = weight(_text_:web in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060382318 = score(doc=203,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.717526 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Changes in the topography of the Web can be expressed in at least four ways: (1) more sites on more servers in more places, (2) more pages and objects added to existing sites and pages, (3) changes in traffic, and (4) modifications to existing text, graphic, and other Web objects. This article does not address the first three factors (more sites, more pages, more traffic) in the growth of the Web. It focuses instead on changes to an existing set of Web documents. The article documents changes to an aging set of Web pages, first identified and "collected" in December 1996 and followed weekly thereafter. Results are reported through February 2001. The article addresses two related phenomena: (1) the life cycle of Web objects, and (2) changes to Web objects. These data reaffirm that the half-life of a Web page is approximately 2 years. There is variation among Web pages by top-level domain and by page type (navigation, content). Web page content appears to stabilize over time; aging pages change less often than once they did
  16. Park, H.W.; Barnett, G.A.; Nam, I.-Y.: Hyperlink - affiliation network structure of top Web sites : examining affiliates with hyperlink in Korea (2002) 0.01 
    0.012647701 = product of:
  0.12015316 = sum of:
    0.06007658 = weight(_text_:web in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06007658 = score(doc=584,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.71389294 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
    0.06007658 = weight(_text_:web in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06007658 = score(doc=584,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.71389294 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This article argues that individual Web sites form hyperlink-affiliations with others for the purpose of strengthening their individual trust, expertness, and safety. It describes the hyperlink-affiliation network structure of Korea's top 152 Web sites. The data were obtained from their Web sites for October 2000. The results indicate that financial Web sites, such as credit card and stock Web sites, occupy the most central position in the network. A cluster analysis reveals that the structure of the hyperlink-affiliation network is influenced by the financial Web sites with which others are affiliated. These findings are discussed from the perspective of Web site credibility.
  17. Impe, S. van; Rousseau, R.: Web-to-print citations and the humanities (2006) 0.01 
    0.01212048 = product of:
  0.11514456 = sum of:
    0.05757228 = weight(_text_:web in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05757228 = score(doc=82,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6841342 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.05757228 = weight(_text_:web in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05757228 = score(doc=82,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6841342 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    References to printed documents made on the web are called web-to-print references. These printed documents then in turn receive web-to-print citations. Webto-print citations and web-to-print references are the topic of this article, in which we study the online impact of printed sources. Web-to-print citations are discussed from a structural point of view and a small-scale experiment related to web-to-print citations for local history journals is performed. The main research question in setting up this experiment concerns the possibility of using web-to-print citations as a substitute for classical citation indexes by gauging the importance, visibility and impact of journals in the humanities. Results show the importance of web bibliographies in the field, but, at least for what concerns the journals and the period studied here, the amount of received web-to-print citations is too small to draw general conclusions.
  18. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.01 
    0.011911207 = product of:
  0.11315647 = sum of:
    0.07048718 = weight(_text_:semantische in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048718 = score(doc=4910,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.50622916 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
    0.042669293 = weight(_text_:suche in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042669293 = score(doc=4910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3312015 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertdienste für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die typische Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden in diesem Buch ausführlich beschrieben und evaluiert. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit sind in das GESIS-Projekt IRM eingeflossen.
    Theme
    Semantische Interoperabilität
  19. Cothey, V.: Web-crawling reliability (2004) 0.01 
    0.011830841 = product of:
  0.11239299 = sum of:
    0.056196496 = weight(_text_:web in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056196496 = score(doc=3089,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.056196496 = weight(_text_:web in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056196496 = score(doc=3089,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    In this article, I investigate the reliability, in the social science sense, of collecting informetric data about the World Wide Web by Web crawling. The investigation includes a critical examination of the practice of Web crawling and contrasts the results of content crawling with the results of link crawling. It is shown that Web crawling by search engines is intentionally biased and selective. I also report the results of a [arge-scale experimental simulation of Web crawling that illustrates the effects of different crawling policies an data collection. It is concluded that the reliability of Web crawling as a data collection technique is improved by fuller reporting of relevant crawling policies.
  20. Maharana, B.; Nayak, K.; Sahu, N.K.: Scholarly use of web resources in LIS research : a citation analysis (2006) 0.01 
    0.011516226 = product of:
  0.109404154 = sum of:
    0.054702077 = weight(_text_:web in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054702077 = score(doc=53,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
    0.054702077 = weight(_text_:web in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054702077 = score(doc=53,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The essential purpose of this paper is to measure the amount of web resources used for scholarly contributions in the area of library and information science (LIS) in India. It further aims to make an analysis of the nature and type of web resources and studies the various standards for web citations. Design/methodology/approach - In this study, the result of analysis of 292 web citations spread over 95 scholarly papers published in the proceedings of the National Conference of the Society for Information Science, India (SIS-2005) has been reported. All the 292 web citations were scanned and data relating to types of web domains, file formats, styles of citations, etc., were collected through a structured check list. The data thus obtained were systematically analyzed, figurative representations were made and appropriate interpretations were drawn. Findings - The study revealed that 292 (34.88 per cent) out of 837 were web citations, proving a significant correlation between the use of Internet resources and research productivity of LIS professionals in India. The highest number of web citations (35.6 per cent) was from .edu/.ac type domains. Most of the web resources (46.9 per cent) cited in the study were hypertext markup language (HTML) files. Originality/value - The paper is the result of an original analysis of web citations undertaken in order to study the dependence of LIS professionals in India on web sources for their scholarly contributions. This carries research value for web content providers, authors and researchers in LIS.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 340
  • d 27
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 359
  • m 7
  • el 6
  • s 3
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications