Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.02 
    0.015023125 = product of:
  0.06510021 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.00866374 = weight(_text_:5 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00866374 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.0041588573 = product of:
      0.012476572 = sum of:
        0.012476572 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012476572 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06449488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.018417481 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.23076923 = coord(6/26)
    Abstract
    A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  2. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.01 
    0.014079222 = product of:
  0.07321195 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.02093434 = weight(_text_:art in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02093434 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08354246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5360413 = idf(docFreq=1287, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.25058323 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5360413 = idf(docFreq=1287, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.1923077 = coord(5/26)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Date
    23. 3.2013 12:27:42
  3. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.013005453 = product of:
  0.067628354 = sum of:
    0.013850621 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013850621 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0408199 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = 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)
    0.013850621 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013850621 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0408199 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = 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)
    0.019422317 = weight(_text_:die in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019422317 = score(doc=77,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044983488 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4424343 = idf(docFreq=10450, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.43176547 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.4424343 = idf(docFreq=10450, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.013850621 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013850621 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0408199 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = 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)
    0.0066541713 = product of:
      0.019962514 = sum of:
        0.019962514 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019962514 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06449488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.018417481 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1923077 = coord(5/26)
    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
  4. Abrizah, A.; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia (2014) 0.01 
    0.01171949 = product of:
  0.06094135 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.00866374 = weight(_text_:5 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00866374 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.1923077 = coord(5/26)
    Abstract
    Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.
  5. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.010853167 = product of:
  0.056436468 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.0041588573 = product of:
      0.012476572 = sum of:
        0.012476572 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012476572 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06449488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.018417481 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1923077 = coord(5/26)
    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. Thelwall, M.: Homophily in MySpace (2009) 0.01 
    0.009651251 = product of:
  0.06273313 = sum of:
    0.015683282 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015683282 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.015683282 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015683282 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.015683282 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015683282 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.015683282 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015683282 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
  0.15384616 = coord(4/26)
    Date
    23. 2.2009 19:32:25
  7. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012) 0.01 
    0.00804271 = product of:
  0.05227761 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
  0.15384616 = coord(4/26)
    Abstract
    YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.
  8. Wilkinson, D.; Thelwall, M.: Trending Twitter topics in English : an international comparison (2012) 0.01 
    0.00804271 = product of:
  0.05227761 = sum of:
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.013069402 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013069402 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06600935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
  0.15384616 = coord(4/26)
    Date
    26. 8.2012 13:57:23
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00 
    0.0015148834 = product of:
  0.019693483 = sum of:
    0.014702855 = weight(_text_:5 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014702855 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.27357182 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.004990629 = product of:
      0.014971886 = sum of:
        0.014971886 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014971886 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06449488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.018417481 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07692308 = coord(2/26)
    Abstract
    Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  10. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012) 0.00 
    8.0516696E-4 = product of:
  0.02093434 = sum of:
    0.02093434 = weight(_text_:art in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02093434 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08354246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5360413 = idf(docFreq=1287, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.25058323 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5360413 = idf(docFreq=1287, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Abstract
    Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.
  11. Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005) 0.00 
    7.9972995E-4 = product of:
  0.020792978 = sum of:
    0.020792978 = weight(_text_:5 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020792978 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.38688898 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.5, S.436-
  12. Thelwall, M.: Webometrics (2009) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Date
    5. 8.2010 17:33:43
  13. Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Date
    5. 2.2012 19:36:40
  14. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064
  15. Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? : Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics (2014) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1018-1027
  16. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889
  17. Thelwall, M.: Book genre and author gender : romance > paranormal-romance to autobiography > memoir (2017) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1212-1223
  18. Thelwall, M.; Foster, D.: Male or female gender-polarized YouTube videos are less viewed (2021) 0.00 
    3.9986498E-4 = product of:
  0.010396489 = sum of:
    0.010396489 = weight(_text_:5 in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010396489 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Abstract
    As one of the world's most visited websites, YouTube is potentially influential for learning gendered attitudes. Nevertheless, despite evidence of gender influences within the site for some topics, the extent to which YouTube reflects or promotes male/female or other gender divides is unknown. This article analyses 10,211 YouTube videos published in 12 months from 2014 to 2015 using commenter-portrayed genders (inferred from usernames) and view counts from the end of 2019. Nonbinary genders are omitted for methodological reasons. Although there were highly male and female topics or themes (e.g., vehicles or beauty) and male or female gendering is the norm, videos with topics attracting both males and females tended to have more viewers (after approximately 5 years) than videos in male or female gendered topics. Similarly, within each topic, videos with gender balanced sets of commenters tend to attract more viewers. Thus, YouTube does not seem to be driving male-female gender differences.
  19. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? : an analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals (2008) 0.00 
    3.3322079E-4 = product of:
  0.00866374 = sum of:
    0.00866374 = weight(_text_:5 in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00866374 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.805-815
  20. Thelwall, M.: Quantitative comparisons of search engine results (2008) 0.00 
    3.3322079E-4 = product of:
  0.00866374 = sum of:
    0.00866374 = weight(_text_:5 in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00866374 = score(doc=2350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05374404 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.018417481 = queryNorm
        0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
  0.03846154 = coord(1/26)
    Abstract
    Search engines are normally used to find information or Web sites, but Webometric investigations use them for quantitative data such as the number of pages matching a query and the international spread of those pages. For this type of application, the accuracy of the hit count estimates and range of URLs in the full results are important. Here, we compare the applications programming interfaces of Google, Yahoo!, and Live Search for 1,587 single word searches. The hit count estimates were broadly consistent but with Yahoo! and Google, reporting 5-6 times more hits than Live Search. Yahoo! tended to return slightly more matching URLs than Google, with Live Search returning significantly fewer. Yahoo!'s result URLs included a significantly wider range of domains and sites than the other two, and there was little consistency between the three engines in the number of different domains. In contrast, the three engines were reasonably consistent in the number of different top-level domains represented in the result URLs, although Yahoo! tended to return the most. In conclusion, quantitative results from the three search engines are mostly consistent but with unexpected types of inconsistency that users should be aware of. Google is recommended for hit count estimates but Yahoo! is recommended for all other Webometric purposes.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 36
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes