Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.012309823 = product of:
  0.070781484 = sum of:
    0.012935456 = product of:
      0.025870912 = sum of:
        0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026419718 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026419718 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.17391305 = coord(4/23)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

Field

Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft

0.0102093 = product of:
  0.0782713 = sum of:
    0.015522547 = product of:
      0.031045094 = sum of:
        0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031703662 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031703662 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Field

Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft

0.0025232534 = product of:
  0.029017413 = sum of:
    0.019438047 = product of:
      0.038876094 = sum of:
        0.038876094 = weight(_text_:international in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038876094 = score(doc=2761,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.49448338 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

0.0021422622 = product of:
  0.024636015 = sum of:
    0.015056648 = product of:
      0.030113297 = sum of:
        0.030113297 = weight(_text_:international in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030113297 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.0012428935 = product of:
  0.014293276 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.1, S.84-104

8.333119E-4 = product of:
  0.019166173 = sum of:
    0.019166173 = product of:
      0.038332347 = sum of:
        0.038332347 = weight(_text_:international in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038332347 = score(doc=1505,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.48756722 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

7.559094E-4 = product of:
  0.017385917 = sum of:
    0.017385917 = product of:
      0.034771834 = sum of:
        0.034771834 = weight(_text_:international in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034771834 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.44227937 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

6.546369E-4 = product of:
  0.015056648 = sum of:
    0.015056648 = product of:
      0.030113297 = sum of:
        0.030113297 = weight(_text_:international in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030113297 = score(doc=3580,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.

4.9529865E-4 = product of:
  0.011391869 = sum of:
    0.011391869 = product of:
      0.022783738 = sum of:
        0.022783738 = weight(_text_:29 in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022783738 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2748193 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

2. 2.2010 19:29:29

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=2002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 2002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Using the 138,751 patents filed in 2006 under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, co-classification analysis is pursued on the basis of three- and four-digit codes in the International Patent Classification (IPC, 8th ed.). The co-classifications among the patents enable us to analyze and visualize the relations among technologies at different levels of aggregation. The hypothesis that classifications might be considered as the organizers of patents into classes, and therefore that co-classification patterns - more than co-citation patterns - might be useful for mapping, is not corroborated. The classifications hang weakly together, even at the four-digit level; at the country level, more specificity can be made visible. However, countries are not the appropriate units of analysis because patent portfolios are largely similar in many advanced countries in terms of the classes attributed. Instead of classes, one may wish to explore the mapping of title words as a better approach to visualize the intellectual organization of patents.

3.5022903E-4 = product of:
  0.008055268 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, 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=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

29. 1.2014 16:38:28

3.470785E-4 = product of:
  0.007982805 = sum of:
    0.007982805 = product of:
      0.01596561 = sum of:
        0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01596561 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

2.4153895E-4 = product of:
  0.0055553955 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=532,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=8281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Scientometrics. 31(1994) no.1, S.59-84

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Scientometrics. 43(1998) no.1, S.5-25

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Analyses and compares in term of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words in a restricted set of full-text articles from a sub-specialty of biochemistry. By using the distribution of words over the section, a clear distinction among 'theoretical' 'observation', and 'methodological' terminology can be made in individual articles. However, at the level of the set this structure is no longer retrieval: Words change both in terms of frequencies of relations with other words, and in terms of positional meaning from 1 text to another. The fluidity of networks in which nodes and links may chenge positions is ecpected to destabilise representations of developments of the sciences on the basis of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words. Discusses the consequences for the lexicographic approach to generating artificial intelligence from scientific texts

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=1341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.77-85

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177