Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0064290287 = product of:
  0.016072571 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=3554,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=3554,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

There have been many attempts to evaluate Web spaces an the basis of the information that they provide, their form or functionality, or even the importance given to each of them by the Web itself. The indicators that have been developed for this purpose fall into two groups: those based an the study of a Web space's formal characteristics, and those related to its link structure. In this study we examine most of the webometric indicators that have been proposed in the literature together with others of our own design by applying them to a set of thematically related Web spaces and analyzing the relationships between the different indicators.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.779-785

Type

a

0.0058368337 = product of:
  0.014592084 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=3335,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=3335,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.352-369

Type

a

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=1814,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=1814,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Using Scopus data, we construct a global map of science based on aggregated journal-journal citations from 1996-2012 (N of journals?=?20,554). This base map enables users to overlay downloads from Scopus interactively. Using a single year (e.g., 2012), results can be compared with mappings based on the Journal Citation Reports at the Web of Science (N?=?10,936). The Scopus maps are more detailed at both the local and global levels because of their greater coverage, including, for example, the arts and humanities. The base maps can be interactively overlaid with journal distributions in sets downloaded from Scopus, for example, for the purpose of portfolio analysis. Rao-Stirling diversity can be used as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the sets under study. Maps at the global and the local level, however, can be very different because of the different levels of aggregation involved. Two journals, for example, can both belong to the humanities in the global map, but participate in different specialty structures locally. The base map and interactive tools are available online (with instructions) at http://www.leydesdorff.net/scopus_ovl.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.1001-1016

Type

a

0.0021322283 = product of:
  0.010661141 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=4447,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study looks at how well the distribution of "sitations" (inlinks received by Web spaces) fits either a power law (of the Lotka type) or a bibliometric distribution for printed publications (of the Bradford type). The experimental sample examines the sitations found in a closed generic environment of thematically-related Web sites - the case of Extremadura (Spain). Two sets of data, varying several parameters, were used. The sitation distributions found were coherent with those described in previous experiments of this type, including in the exponent. The plots of accumulated clusters of sitations and targets, however, did not fit the typical Bradford distribution.

Type

a