Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Larivière, V."
  1. Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016) 0.02 
    0.016787792 = product of:
  0.083938956 = sum of:
    0.083938956 = weight(_text_:relation in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083938956 = score(doc=3028,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40877336 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Scientific abstracts reproduce only part of the information and the complexity of argumentation in a scientific article. The purpose of this paper provides a first analysis of the similarity between the text of scientific abstracts and the body of articles, using sentences as the basic textual unit. It contributes to the understanding of the structure of abstracts. Design/methodology/approach - Using sentence-based similarity metrics, the authors quantify the phenomenon of text re-use in abstracts and examine the positions of the sentences that are similar to sentences in abstracts in the introduction, methods, results and discussion structure, using a corpus of over 85,000 research articles published in the seven Public Library of Science journals. Findings - The authors provide evidence that 84 percent of abstract have at least one sentence in common with the body of the paper. Studying the distributions of sentences in the body of the articles that are re-used in abstracts, the authors show that there exists a strong relation between the rhetorical structure of articles and the zones that authors re-use when writing abstracts, with sentences mainly coming from the beginning of the introduction and the end of the conclusion. Originality/value - Scientific abstracts contain what is considered by the author(s) as information that best describe documents' content. This is a first study that examines the relation between the contents of abstracts and the rhetorical structure of scientific articles. The work might provide new insight for improving automatic abstracting tools as well as information retrieval approaches, in which text organization and structure are important features.
  2. Larivière, V.; Macaluso, B.: Improving the coverage of social science and humanities researchers' output : the case of the Érudit journal platform (2011) 0.01 
    0.011870761 = product of:
  0.059353806 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 4943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=4943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 4943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4943)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In non-English-speaking countries the measurement of research output in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using standard bibliographic databases suffers from a major drawback: the underrepresentation of articles published in local, non-English, journals. Using papers indexed (1) in a local database of periodicals (Érudit) and (2) in the Web of Science, assigned to the population of university professors in the province of Québec, this paper quantifies, for individual researchers and departments, the importance of papers published in local journals. It also analyzes differences across disciplines and between French-speaking and English-speaking universities. The results show that, while the addition of papers published in local journals to bibliometric measures has little effect when all disciplines are considered and for anglophone universities, it increases the output of researchers from francophone universities in the social sciences and humanities by almost a third. It also shows that there is very little relation, at the level of individual researchers or departments, between the output indexed in the Web of Science and the output retrieved from the Érudit database; a clear demonstration that the Web of Science cannot be used as a proxy for the "overall" production of SSH researchers in Québec. The paper concludes with a discussion on these disciplinary and language differences, as well as on their implications for rankings of universities.
  3. Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012) 0.01 
    0.011870761 = product of:
  0.059353806 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.
  4. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0030078662 = product of:
  0.015039331 = sum of:
    0.015039331 = product of:
      0.045117993 = sum of:
        0.045117993 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045117993 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  5. Archambault, E.; Campbell, D; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009) 0.00 
    0.0017884907 = product of:
  0.008942453 = sum of:
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    19. 7.2009 12:20:29
  6. Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016) 0.00 
    0.0017884907 = product of:
  0.008942453 = sum of:
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    18.10.2016 14:29:07
  7. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.00 
    0.0010634413 = product of:
  0.0053172065 = sum of:
    0.0053172065 = product of:
      0.015951619 = sum of:
        0.015951619 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015951619 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Themes