Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Wolfram, D."
  1. Dimitroff, A.; Wolfram, D.: Searcher response in a hypertext-based bibliographic information retrieval system (1995) 0.01 
    0.0141583625 = product of:
  0.028316725 = sum of:
    0.028316725 = product of:
      0.05663345 = sum of:
        0.05663345 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05663345 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.22-29
  2. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.01 
    0.010618771 = product of:
  0.021237543 = sum of:
    0.021237543 = product of:
      0.042475086 = sum of:
        0.042475086 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042475086 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
  3. Lu, K.; Cai, X.; Ajiferuke, I.; Wolfram, D.: Vocabulary size and its effect on topic representation (2017) 0.01 
    0.010427962 = product of:
  0.020855924 = sum of:
    0.020855924 = product of:
      0.04171185 = sum of:
        0.04171185 = weight(_text_:5 in 3414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171185 = score(doc=3414,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.27357182 = fieldWeight in 3414, 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=3414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates how computational overhead for topic model training may be reduced by selectively removing terms from the vocabulary of text corpora being modeled. We compare the impact of removing singly occurring terms, the top 0.5%, 1% and 5% most frequently occurring terms and both top 0.5% most frequent and singly occurring terms, along with changes in the number of topics modeled (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100) using three datasets. Four outcome measures are compared. The removal of singly occurring terms has little impact on outcomes for all of the measures tested. Document discriminative capacity, as measured by the document space density, is reduced by the removal of frequently occurring terms, but increases with higher numbers of topics. Vocabulary size does not greatly influence entropy, but entropy is affected by the number of topics. Finally, topic similarity, as measured by pairwise topic similarity and Jensen-Shannon divergence, decreases with the removal of frequent terms. The findings have implications for information science research in information retrieval and informetrics that makes use of topic modeling.
    Date
    5. 9.2014 10:18:18
  4. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.01 
    0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
  5. Wolfram, D.; Volz, A.; Dimitroff, A.: ¬The effect of linkage structure on retrieval performance in a hypertext-based bibliographic retrieval system (1996) 0.01 
    0.008602629 = product of:
  0.017205259 = sum of:
    0.017205259 = product of:
      0.034410518 = sum of:
        0.034410518 = weight(_text_:5 in 6622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034410518 = score(doc=6622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.22568524 = fieldWeight in 6622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.5, S.529-541
  6. Wolfram, D.; Wang, P.; Zhang, J.: Identifying Web search session patterns using cluster analysis : a comparison of three search environments (2009) 0.01 
    0.0073736827 = product of:
  0.014747365 = sum of:
    0.014747365 = product of:
      0.02949473 = sum of:
        0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 2796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02949473 = score(doc=2796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 2796, 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=2796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.896-910
  7. Wolfram, D.: ¬The power to influence : an informetric analysis of the works of Hope Olson (2016) 0.01 
    0.0073736827 = product of:
  0.014747365 = sum of:
    0.014747365 = product of:
      0.02949473 = sum of:
        0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 3170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02949473 = score(doc=3170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 3170, 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=3170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.5, S.331-337
  8. Wolfram, D.; Xie, H.I.: Traditional IR for web users : a context for general audience digital libraries (2002) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.5, S.627-648
  9. Wang, F.; Wolfram, D.: Assessment of journal similarity based on citing discipline analysis (2015) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=1849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1849, 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=1849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study compares the range of disciplines of citing journal articles to determine how closely related journals assigned to the same Web of Science research area are. The frequency distribution of disciplines by citing articles provides a signature for a cited journal that permits it to be compared with other journals using similarity comparison techniques. As an initial exploration, citing discipline data for 40 high-impact-factor journals assigned to the "information science and library science" category of the Web of Science were compared across 5 time periods. Similarity relationships were determined using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to compare the outcomes produced by the proposed citing discipline and established cocitation methods. The maps and clustering outcomes reveal that a number of journals in allied areas of the information science and library science category may not be very closely related to each other or may not be appropriately situated in the category studied. The citing discipline similarity data resulted in similar outcomes with the cocitation data but with some notable differences. Because the citing discipline method relies on a citing perspective different from cocitations, it may provide a complementary way to compare journal similarity that is less labor intensive than cocitation analysis.

Authors

Years

Themes