Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Stock, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsmittel"
  1. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Intellectual property information : A comparative analysis of main information providers (2006) 0.01
    0.0062259356 = product of:
      0.04358155 = sum of:
        0.018161386 = weight(_text_:information in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018161386 = score(doc=210,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
        0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025420163 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 210, 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=210)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1794-1803
  2. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Online-Hosts für Wissenschaft, Technik und Medizin auf dem deutschen Informationsmarkt : Eine komparative Analyse (2005) 0.00
    0.0028179463 = product of:
      0.039451245 = sum of:
        0.039451245 = weight(_text_:web in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039451245 = score(doc=3335,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Wir vergleichen die Content-Aggregatoren DataStar, DIALOG, DIMDI, FIZ Karlsruhe (STN International), FIZ Technik, Ovid, Questel-Orbit and Thomson Scientific's Web of Knowledge hinsichtlich ihrer Stellung auf dem Markt elektronischer Informationsdienste in Deutschland. Besprochen werden die Wettbewerbssituation sowie die Kooperationen, die Stärken bzw. Alleinstellungsmerkmale der Informationsanbieter und die kritischen Erfolgsfaktoren der WTMHosts. Marktführer ist in Deutschland eindeutig STN.
    Object
    Thomson Scientific's Web of Knowledge
  3. Stock, M.: Boulevard online : ASV Infopool (2002) 0.00
    7.6474476E-4 = product of:
      0.010706427 = sum of:
        0.010706427 = product of:
          0.032119278 = sum of:
            0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032119278 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.10, S.22-27

Languages