Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.1552798 = product of:
  0.6211192 = sum of:
    0.20703973 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20703973 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2762897 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.20703973 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20703973 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2762897 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.20703973 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20703973 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2762897 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.019973617 = product of:
  0.1198417 = sum of:
    0.09001986 = weight(_text_:verteilte in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09001986 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21036641 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.45514 = idf(docFreq=188, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.42791936 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.45514 = idf(docFreq=188, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
    0.029821843 = product of:
      0.059643686 = sum of:
        0.059643686 = weight(_text_:allgemein in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059643686 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17123379 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.34831727 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Nutzer erwarten für Literaturrecherchen in wissenschaftlichen Suchsystemen einen möglichst hohen Anteil an relevanten und qualitativen Dokumenten in den Trefferergebnissen. Insbesondere die Reihenfolge und Struktur der gelisteten Ergebnisse (Ranking) spielt, neben dem direkten Volltextzugriff auf die Dokumente, für viele Nutzer inzwischen eine entscheidende Rolle. Abgegrenzt wird Ranking oder Relevance Ranking von sogenannten Sortierungen zum Beispiel nach dem Erscheinungsjahr der Publikation, obwohl hier die Grenze zu »nach inhaltlicher Relevanz« gerankten Listen konzeptuell nicht sauber zu ziehen ist. Das Ranking von Dokumenten führt letztlich dazu, dass sich die Benutzer fokussiert mit den oberen Treffermengen eines Suchergebnisses beschäftigen. Der mittlere und untere Bereich eines Suchergebnisses wird häufig nicht mehr in Betracht gezogen. Aufgrund der Vielzahl an relevanten und verfügbaren Informationsquellen ist es daher notwendig, Kernbereiche in den Suchräumen zu identifizieren und diese anschließend dem Nutzer hervorgehoben zu präsentieren. Phillipp Mayr fasst hier die Ergebnisse seiner Dissertation zum Thema »Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken« zusammen.

Theme

Katalogfragen allgemein

0.011955905 = product of:
  0.14347085 = sum of:
    0.14347085 = weight(_text_:205 in 4499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14347085 = score(doc=4499,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.6974274 = fieldWeight in 4499, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4499)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag auf S.204-205: Vier bibliometrische Kennzahlen auf Grundlage von zbMATH-Daten. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1515/dmvm-2017-0064.

0.009564724 = product of:
  0.114776686 = sum of:
    0.114776686 = weight(_text_:205 in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114776686 = score(doc=4142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.5579419 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.205-207

0.0071735433 = product of:
  0.08608252 = sum of:
    0.08608252 = weight(_text_:205 in 491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08608252 = score(doc=491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.41845644 = fieldWeight in 491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=491)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The growing complexity of challenges involved in scientific progress demands ever more frequent application of competencies and knowledge from different scientific fields. The present work analyzes the degree of collaboration among scientists from different disciplines to identify the most frequent "combinations of knowledge" in research activity. The methodology adopts an innovative bibliometric approach based on the disciplinary affiliation of publication coauthors. The field of observation includes all publications (167,179) indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded for the years 2004-2008, authored by all scientists in the hard sciences (43,223) at Italian universities (68). The analysis examines 205 research fields grouped in 9 disciplines. Identifying the fields with the highest potential of interdisciplinary collaboration is useful to inform research polices at the national and regional levels, as well as management strategies at the institutional level.

0.0071735433 = product of:
  0.08608252 = sum of:
    0.08608252 = weight(_text_:205 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08608252 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.41845644 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.201-205

0.0059779524 = product of:
  0.07173543 = sum of:
    0.07173543 = weight(_text_:205 in 4315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07173543 = score(doc=4315,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.3487137 = fieldWeight in 4315, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4315)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2017, H.4, S.204-205

0.0046871332 = product of:
  0.056245595 = sum of:
    0.056245595 = weight(_text_:informatik in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056245595 = score(doc=4765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.3382494 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Field

Informatik

0.0046871332 = product of:
  0.056245595 = sum of:
    0.056245595 = weight(_text_:informatik in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056245595 = score(doc=2347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.3382494 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Field

Informatik

0.0039059445 = product of:
  0.046871334 = sum of:
    0.046871334 = weight(_text_:informatik in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046871334 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2818745 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Field

Informatik

0.0033135382 = product of:
  0.039762456 = sum of:
    0.039762456 = product of:
      0.07952491 = sum of:
        0.07952491 = weight(_text_:allgemein in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07952491 = score(doc=4868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17123379 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.46442303 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Katalogfragen allgemein

0.0032029 = product of:
  0.0384348 = sum of:
    0.0384348 = weight(_text_:internet in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0384348 = score(doc=386,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This study explores the factors influencing citations to Internet studies by assessing the relative explanatory power of three perspectives: normative theory, the social constructivist approach, and a natural growth mechanism. Using data on 7,700+ articles of Internet studies published in 100+ Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)-listed journals in 2000-2009, the study adopted a multilevel model to disentangle the impact between article- and journal-level factors on citations. This research strategy resulted in a number of both expected and surprising findings. The primary determinants for citations are found to be journal-level factors, accounting for 14% of the variances in citations of Internet studies. The impact of some, if not all, article-level factors on citations are moderated by journal-level factors. Internet studies, like studies in other areas (e.g., management, demography, and ecology), are cited more for rhetorical purposes, as suggested by the social constructivist approach, rather than as a form of reward, as argued by normative theory. The impact of time on citations varies across journals, which creates a growing "citation gap" for Internet studies published in journals with different characteristics.

0.0031707096 = product of:
  0.038048513 = sum of:
    0.038048513 = weight(_text_:internet in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038048513 = score(doc=1111,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39547163 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.

0.0022076783 = product of:
  0.02649214 = sum of:
    0.02649214 = product of:
      0.05298428 = sum of:
        0.05298428 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05298428 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.0020921256 = product of:
  0.025105506 = sum of:
    0.025105506 = weight(_text_:internet in 2578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025105506 = score(doc=2578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2578, 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=2578)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Bibliometrie zur Evaluation wissenschaftlicher Leistung gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung. Vor allem für Hochschulleitungen sind bibliometrische Indices zur Leistungsbeurteilung ihrer Wissenschaftler attraktiv. Die Wissenschaftler hingegen stehen den bibliometrischen Analysen skeptisch gegenüber und nehmen die Indices nur zögerlich an, wie die geringe Nutzung auf ihren Homepages im Internet zeigt. Für Bibliotheken ergibt sich eine neue Aufgabe. Sie sollten sich als Partner beider Gruppen positionieren und durch aktive Beratung ihre Kompetenz auf diesem Feld einbringen.

0.0018491952 = product of:
  0.022190342 = sum of:
    0.022190342 = weight(_text_:internet in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022190342 = score(doc=4944,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 4944, 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=4944)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This study examines longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government (UIG) relationship on the web in the Korean context by using triple helix (TH) indicators. The study considers various Internet resources, including websites/documents, blogs, online cafes, Knowledge-In (comparable to Yahoo! Answers), and online news sites, by employing webometric and co-word analysis techniques to ascertain longitudinal trends in the UIG relationship, which have received considerable attention in the last decade. The results indicate that the UIG relationship varied according to the government's policies and that there was some tension in the longitudinal UIG relationship. Further, websites/documents and blogs were the most reliable sources for examining the strength of and variations in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships on the web. In addition, web-based T(uig) values showed a stronger trilateral relationship and larger variations in the UIG relationship than Science Citation Index-based T(uig) values. The results suggest that various Internet resources (e.g., advanced search engines, websites/documents, blogs, and online cafes), together with TH indicators, can be used to explore the UIG relationship on the web.

0.0018306099 = product of:
  0.021967318 = sum of:
    0.021967318 = weight(_text_:internet in 3239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021967318 = score(doc=3239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 3239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3239)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet

0.0015853548 = product of:
  0.019024257 = sum of:
    0.019024257 = weight(_text_:internet in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019024257 = score(doc=2274,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.19773582 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

RSWK

Internet / Bibliometrie / Einführung

Subject

Internet / Bibliometrie / Einführung

Theme

Internet

0.0015690941 = product of:
  0.01882913 = sum of:
    0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 2163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01882913 = score(doc=2163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2163, 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=2163)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet

0.0015690941 = product of:
  0.01882913 = sum of:
    0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01882913 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2735, 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=2735)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet