Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0018378935 = product of:
  0.04227155 = sum of:
    0.04227155 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04227155 = score(doc=5020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Field

Informationswissenschaft

0.0018378935 = product of:
  0.04227155 = sum of:
    0.04227155 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04227155 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Field

Informationswissenschaft

0.0014427783 = product of:
  0.0331839 = sum of:
    0.0331839 = product of:
      0.0663678 = sum of:
        0.0663678 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0663678 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

0.0011486834 = product of:
  0.026419718 = sum of:
    0.026419718 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026419718 = score(doc=437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 437, 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=437)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Field

Informationswissenschaft

8.3363656E-4 = product of:
  0.01917364 = sum of:
    0.01917364 = sum of:
      0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0062852125 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
      0.012888429 = weight(_text_:29 in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012888429 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Relevance is the central concept in information science because of its salience in designing and evaluating literature-based answering systems. It is salient when users seek information through human intermediaries, such as reference librarians, but becomes even more so when systems are automated and users must navigate them on their own. Designers of classic precomputer systems of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries appear to have been no less concerned with relevance than the information scientists of today. The concept has, however, proved difficult to define and operationalize. A common belief is that it is a relation between a user's request for information and the documents the system retrieves in response. Documents might be considered retrieval-worthy because they: 1) constitute evidence for or against a claim; 2) answer a question; or 3) simply match the request in topic. In practice, literature-based answering makes use of term-matching technology, and most evaluation of relevance has involved topical match as the primary criterion for acceptability. The standard table for evaluating the relation of retrieved documents to a request has only the values "relevant" and "not relevant," yet many analysts hold that relevance admits of degrees. Moreover, many analysts hold that users decide relevance on more dimensions than topical match. Who then can validly judge relevance? Is it only the person who put the request and who can evaluate a document on multiple dimensions? Or can surrogate judges perform this function on the basis of topicality? Such questions arise in a longstanding debate on whether relevance is objective or subjective. One proposal has been to reframe the debate in terms of relevance theory (imported from linguistic pragmatics), which makes relevance increase with a document's valuable cognitive effects and decrease with the effort needed to process it. This notion allows degree of topical match to contribute to relevance but allows other considerations to contribute as well. Since both cognitive effects and processing effort will differ across users, they can be taken as subjective, but users' decisions can also be objectively evaluated if the logic behind them is made explicit. Relevance seems problematical because the considerations that lead people to accept documents in literature searches, or to use them later in contexts such as citation, are seldom fully revealed. Once they are revealed, relevance may be seen as not only multidimensional and dynamic, but also understandable.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:29:23

5.796935E-4 = product of:
  0.013332949 = sum of:
    0.013332949 = product of:
      0.026665898 = sum of:
        0.026665898 = weight(_text_:1 in 7742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026665898 = score(doc=7742,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.46059424 = fieldWeight in 7742, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of documentation 50(1994) no.1, S.58-59. (G. Matthews); Journal of academic librarianship 20(1994) no.1, S.34 (G.D. Barber)

4.4094716E-4 = product of:
  0.010141784 = sum of:
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

3.5022903E-4 = product of:
  0.008055268 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=1459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1459, 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=1459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:55:24

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

2.8018325E-4 = product of:
  0.0064442144 = sum of:
    0.0064442144 = product of:
      0.012888429 = sum of:
        0.012888429 = weight(_text_:29 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012888429 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

29. 9.2001 13:58:38

2.5196982E-4 = product of:
  0.0057953056 = sum of:
    0.0057953056 = product of:
      0.011590611 = sum of:
        0.011590611 = weight(_text_:international in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011590611 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.14742646 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

This study systematically compares retrievals on 11 topics across five well-known data bases, with MEDLINE's subject indexing as a focus. Each topic was posed by a researcher in the medical behavioral sciences. Each was searches in MEDLINE, EXCERPTA MEDICA, and PSYCHINFO, which permit descriptor searches, and in SCISEARCH and SOCIAL SCISEARCH, which express topics through cited references. Searches on each topic were made with (1) descriptors, (2) cited references, and (3) natural language (a capabiblity common to all five data bases). The researchers who posed the topics judged the results. In every case, the set of records judged relevant was used to to calculate recall, precision, and novelty ratios. Overall, MEDLINE had the highest recall percentage (37%), followed by SSCI (31%). All searches resulted in high precision ratios; novelty ratios of data bases and searches varied widely. Differences in record format among data bases affected the success of the natural language retrievals. Some 445 documents judged relevant were not retrieved from MEDLINE using its descriptors; they were found in MEDLINE through natural language or in an alternative data base. An analysis was performed to examine possible faults in MEDLINE subject indexing as the reason for their nonretrieval. However, no patterns of indexing failure could be seen in those documents subsequently found in MEDLINE through known-item searches. Documents not found in MEDLINE primarily represent failures of coverage - articles were from nonindexed or selectively indexed journals