-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.007469285 = product of:
0.070958205 = sum of:
0.031216504 = weight(_text_:medizin in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031216504 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.35358822 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.031216504 = weight(_text_:medizin in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031216504 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.35358822 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.0040401206 = product of:
0.008080241 = sum of:
0.008080241 = weight(_text_:4 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008080241 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.17989448 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.004485078 = product of:
0.013455234 = sum of:
0.013455234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013455234 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.10526316 = coord(4/38)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
- Field
- Medizin
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.0073381993 = product of:
0.05577031 = sum of:
0.012447552 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012447552 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.036684837 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.012447552 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012447552 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.036684837 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.012447552 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012447552 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.036684837 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.012447552 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012447552 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.036684837 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.0059801037 = product of:
0.01794031 = sum of:
0.01794031 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01794031 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.13157895 = coord(5/38)
- 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
-
Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014)
0.00
0.0043732324 = product of:
0.05539428 = sum of:
0.026013756 = weight(_text_:medizin in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026013756 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.29465687 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.026013756 = weight(_text_:medizin in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026013756 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.29465687 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.0033667674 = product of:
0.006733535 = sum of:
0.006733535 = weight(_text_:4 in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006733535 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.078947365 = coord(3/38)
- Field
- Medizin
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669
-
Zuccala, A.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Dhiensa, R.: Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries : a case study of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) (2007)
0.00
0.003498586 = product of:
0.044315424 = sum of:
0.020811005 = weight(_text_:medizin in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020811005 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23572549 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
0.020811005 = weight(_text_:medizin in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020811005 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23572549 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
0.002693414 = product of:
0.005386828 = sum of:
0.005386828 = weight(_text_:4 in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005386828 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.11992966 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.078947365 = coord(3/38)
- Field
- Medizin
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.4, S.558-589
-
Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles : an analysis of 45 fields (2016)
0.00
0.0032859477 = product of:
0.062433008 = sum of:
0.031216504 = weight(_text_:medizin in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031216504 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.35358822 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
0.031216504 = weight(_text_:medizin in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031216504 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08828491 = queryWeight, product of:
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.35358822 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.333859 = idf(docFreq=579, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Field
- Medizin
-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.00
0.0016077528 = product of:
0.030547302 = sum of:
0.025267214 = sum of:
0.009426949 = weight(_text_:4 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009426949 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.2098769 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.015840266 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015840266 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.0052800886 = product of:
0.015840266 = sum of:
0.015840266 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015840266 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 3. 6.2007 16:37:29
- Series
- Internet reference services quarterly. 10(2005) nos.3/4
-
Sud, P.; Thelwall, M.: Not all international collaboration is beneficial : the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration (2016)
0.00
0.0013969684 = product of:
0.0530848 = sum of:
0.0530848 = weight(_text_:biochemie in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0530848 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14100192 = queryWeight, product of:
8.518833 = idf(docFreq=23, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.37648278 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.518833 = idf(docFreq=23, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
0.02631579 = coord(1/38)
- Field
- Biochemie
-
Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias : evidence and possible causes (2004)
0.00
0.0013780738 = product of:
0.026183402 = sum of:
0.021657612 = sum of:
0.008080241 = weight(_text_:4 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008080241 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.17989448 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.0045257905 = product of:
0.013577371 = sum of:
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 14. 8.2004 10:30:29
- Source
- Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.693-708
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.00
0.0013780738 = product of:
0.026183402 = sum of:
0.021657612 = sum of:
0.008080241 = weight(_text_:4 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008080241 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.17989448 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.0045257905 = product of:
0.013577371 = sum of:
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Abstract
- In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011)
0.00
0.0011483949 = product of:
0.021819502 = sum of:
0.01804801 = sum of:
0.006733535 = weight(_text_:4 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006733535 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 4. 7.2011 19:39:29
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.00
0.0010881765 = product of:
0.020675354 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015018115 = product of:
0.022527171 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.011212695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011212695 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0010881765 = product of:
0.020675354 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015018115 = product of:
0.022527171 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.011212695 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011212695 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015)
0.00
5.954987E-4 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.0067886855 = product of:
0.013577371 = sum of:
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0045257905 = product of:
0.013577371 = sum of:
0.013577371 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013577371 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 26. 4.2015 19:29:49
-
Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Scholarly use of the Web : what are the key inducers of links to journal Web sites? (2003)
0.00
4.9624895E-4 = product of:
0.00942873 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006)
0.00
4.9624895E-4 = product of:
0.00942873 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 21.10.2006 19:29:49
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012)
0.00
4.9624895E-4 = product of:
0.00942873 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- 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.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks (2014)
0.00
4.9624895E-4 = product of:
0.00942873 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Abstract
- Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017)
0.00
4.9624895E-4 = product of:
0.00942873 = sum of:
0.005657238 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.003771492 = product of:
0.011314476 = sum of:
0.011314476 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011314476 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05822402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:45
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
3.7391225E-4 = product of:
0.0071043326 = sum of:
0.0033667674 = product of:
0.006733535 = sum of:
0.006733535 = weight(_text_:4 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006733535 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044916563 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = queryNorm
0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0037375651 = product of:
0.011212695 = sum of:
0.011212695 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011212695 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05263158 = coord(2/38)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
1.3909777E-4 = product of:
0.005285715 = sum of:
0.005285715 = product of:
0.015857145 = sum of:
0.015857145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015857145 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057961546 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.016551789 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.02631579 = coord(1/38)
- 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
