Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.001360117 = product of:
  0.015641345 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 1035, 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=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 1035, 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=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Footnote

Paper presented at the 6th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Jerusalem, 16-19 June 1997

Source

Scientometrics. 41(1998) nos.1/2, S.209-223

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.

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 6936, 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=6936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.