Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

0.009858703 = product of:
  0.07394027 = sum of:
    0.021335194 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021335194 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06287808 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028369885 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.052605078 = sum of:
      0.021855254 = weight(_text_:internet in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021855254 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028369885 = queryNorm
          0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.030749822 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030749822 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028369885 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406

Theme

Internet

0.0026302538 = product of:
  0.039453804 = sum of:
    0.039453804 = sum of:
      0.01639144 = weight(_text_:internet in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01639144 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028369885 = queryNorm
          0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.023062365 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023062365 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028369885 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

Theme

Internet

0.0020661294 = product of:
  0.03099194 = sum of:
    0.03099194 = product of:
      0.06198388 = sum of:
        0.06198388 = weight(_text_:kommunikationswissenschaften in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06198388 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15078795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Field

Kommunikationswissenschaften

0.0014758068 = product of:
  0.022137102 = sum of:
    0.022137102 = product of:
      0.044274203 = sum of:
        0.044274203 = weight(_text_:kommunikationswissenschaften in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044274203 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15078795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Field

Kommunikationswissenschaften

0.0014758068 = product of:
  0.022137102 = sum of:
    0.022137102 = product of:
      0.044274203 = sum of:
        0.044274203 = weight(_text_:kommunikationswissenschaften in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044274203 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15078795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Field

Kommunikationswissenschaften

9.4636023E-4 = product of:
  0.014195403 = sum of:
    0.014195403 = product of:
      0.028390806 = sum of:
        0.028390806 = weight(_text_:internet in 3303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028390806 = score(doc=3303,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.33897567 = fieldWeight in 3303, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3303)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Memes are small units of culture, analogous to genes, which flow from person to person by copying or imitation. More than any previous medium, the Internet has the technical capabilities for global meme diffusion. Yet, to spread globally, memes need to negotiate their way through cultural and linguistic borders. This article introduces a new broad method, Web memetics, comprising extensive Web searches and combined quantitative and qualitative analyses, to identify and assess: (a) the different versions of a meme, (b) its evolution online, and (c) its Web presence and translation into common Internet languages. This method is demonstrated through one extensively circulated joke about men, women, and computers. The results show that the joke has mutated into several different versions and is widely translated, and that translations incorporate small, local adaptations while retaining the English versions' fundamental components. In conclusion, Web memetics has demonstrated its ability to identify and track the evolution and spread of memes online, with interesting results, albeit for only one case study.

Theme

Internet

9.0597535E-4 = product of:
  0.01358963 = sum of:
    0.01358963 = product of:
      0.02717926 = sum of:
        0.02717926 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02717926 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

7.7269995E-4 = product of:
  0.0115904985 = sum of:
    0.0115904985 = product of:
      0.023180997 = sum of:
        0.023180997 = weight(_text_:internet in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023180997 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.

Theme

Internet

7.6874555E-4 = product of:
  0.011531183 = sum of:
    0.011531183 = product of:
      0.023062365 = sum of:
        0.023062365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023062365 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

7.6874555E-4 = product of:
  0.011531183 = sum of:
    0.011531183 = product of:
      0.023062365 = sum of:
        0.023062365 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023062365 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

7.6874555E-4 = product of:
  0.011531183 = sum of:
    0.011531183 = product of:
      0.023062365 = sum of:
        0.023062365 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023062365 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

7.285085E-4 = product of:
  0.010927627 = sum of:
    0.010927627 = product of:
      0.021855254 = sum of:
        0.021855254 = weight(_text_:internet in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021855254 = score(doc=2908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Internet

6.4391666E-4 = product of:
  0.009658749 = sum of:
    0.009658749 = product of:
      0.019317498 = sum of:
        0.019317498 = weight(_text_:internet in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019317498 = score(doc=6851,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

Theme

Internet

6.4391666E-4 = product of:
  0.009658749 = sum of:
    0.009658749 = product of:
      0.019317498 = sum of:
        0.019317498 = weight(_text_:internet in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019317498 = score(doc=1236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Web links have been studied by information scientists for at least six years but it is only in the past two that clear evidence has emerged to show that counts of links to scholarly Web spaces (universities and departments) can correlate significantly with research measures, giving some credence to their use for the investigation of scholarly communication. This paper reports an a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. An empirical approach is used: collecting data and testing for significant patterns. The specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors, two variables previously discovered to be related. A new methodology for data collection is also introduced that uses the Internet Archive to obtain an earliest known creation date for Web sites. The results show that both site age and site content are significant factors for the disciplines studied: library and information science, and law. Comparisons between the two fields also show disciplinary differences in Web site characteristics. Scholars and publishers should be particularly aware that richer content an a journal's Web site tends to generate links and thus the traffic to the site.

Theme

Internet

6.4391666E-4 = product of:
  0.009658749 = sum of:
    0.009658749 = product of:
      0.019317498 = sum of:
        0.019317498 = weight(_text_:internet in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019317498 = score(doc=4490,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Web impact factors, the proposed web equivalent of impact factors for journals, can be calculated by using search engines. It has been found that the results are problematic because of the variable coverage of search engines as well as their ability to give significantly different results over short periods of time. The fundamental problem is that although some search engines provide a functionality that is capable of being used for impact calculations, this is not their primary task and therefore they do not give guarantees as to performance in this respect. In this paper, a bespoke web crawler designed specifically for the calculation of reliable WIFs is presented. This crawler was used to calculate WIFs for a number of UK universities, and the results of these calculations are discussed. The principal findings were that with certain restrictions, WIFs can be calculated reliably, but do not correlate with accepted research rankings owing to the variety of material hosted on university servers. Changes to the calculations to improve the fit of the results to research rankings are proposed, but there are still inherent problems undermining the reliability of the calculation. These problems still apply if the WIF scores are taken on their own as indicators of the general impact of any area of the Internet, but with care would not apply to online journals.

Theme

Internet

6.406213E-4 = product of:
  0.009609319 = sum of:
    0.009609319 = product of:
      0.019218639 = sum of:
        0.019218639 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019218639 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

6.406213E-4 = product of:
  0.009609319 = sum of:
    0.009609319 = product of:
      0.019218639 = sum of:
        0.019218639 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019218639 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

6.406213E-4 = product of:
  0.009609319 = sum of:
    0.009609319 = product of:
      0.019218639 = sum of:
        0.019218639 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019218639 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

6.406213E-4 = product of:
  0.009609319 = sum of:
    0.009609319 = product of:
      0.019218639 = sum of:
        0.019218639 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019218639 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

6.406213E-4 = product of:
  0.009609319 = sum of:
    0.009609319 = product of:
      0.019218639 = sum of:
        0.019218639 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019218639 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22