Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.03 
    0.031034613 = product of:
  0.062069226 = sum of:
    0.062069226 = product of:
      0.12413845 = sum of:
        0.12413845 = weight(_text_:dokumente in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12413845 = score(doc=4292,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25999573 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.47746342 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Re-Ranking-Ansatz für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, der die Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur messbar verbessern kann. Das nichttextorientierte Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing wird eingeführt und anschließend im empirischen Teil des Artikels bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherche-Topics evaluiert. Dem Bradford Law of Scattering (BLS), auf dem Bradfordizing basiert, liegt zugrunde, dass sich die Literatur zu einem beliebigen Fachgebiet bzw. -thema in Zonen unterschiedlicher Dokumentenkonzentration verteilt. Dem Kernbereich mit hoher Konzentration der Literatur folgen Bereiche mit mittlerer und geringer Konzentration. Bradfordizing sortiert bzw. rankt eine Dokumentmenge damit nach den sogenannten Kernzeitschriften. Der Retrievaltest mit 164 intellektuell bewerteten Fragestellungen in Fachdatenbanken aus den Bereichen Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzeitschriften signifikant häufiger relevant bewertet werden als Dokumente der zweiten Dokumentzone bzw. den Peripherie-Zeitschriften. Die Implementierung von Bradfordizing und weiteren Re-Rankingverfahren liefert unmittelbare Mehrwerte für den Nutzer.
  2. Tavakolizadeh-Ravari, M.: Analysis of the long term dynamics in thesaurus developments and its consequences (2017) 0.03 
    0.029259713 = product of:
  0.058519427 = sum of:
    0.058519427 = product of:
      0.11703885 = sum of:
        0.11703885 = weight(_text_:dokumente in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11703885 = score(doc=3081,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25999573 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.45015684 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Arbeit analysiert die dynamische Entwicklung und den Gebrauch von Thesaurusbegriffen. Zusätzlich konzentriert sie sich auf die Faktoren, die die Zahl von Indexbegriffen pro Dokument oder Zeitschrift beeinflussen. Als Untersuchungsobjekt dienten der MeSH und die entsprechende Datenbank "MEDLINE". Die wichtigsten Konsequenzen sind: 1. Der MeSH-Thesaurus hat sich durch drei unterschiedliche Phasen jeweils logarithmisch entwickelt. Solch einen Thesaurus sollte folgenden Gleichung folgen: "T = 3.076,6 Ln (d) - 22.695 + 0,0039d" (T = Begriffe, Ln = natürlicher Logarithmus und d = Dokumente). Um solch einen Thesaurus zu konstruieren, muss man demnach etwa 1.600 Dokumente von unterschiedlichen Themen des Bereiches des Thesaurus haben. Die dynamische Entwicklung von Thesauri wie MeSH erfordert die Einführung eines neuen Begriffs pro Indexierung von 256 neuen Dokumenten. 2. Die Verteilung der Thesaurusbegriffe erbrachte drei Kategorien: starke, normale und selten verwendete Headings. Die letzte Gruppe ist in einer Testphase, während in der ersten und zweiten Kategorie die neu hinzukommenden Deskriptoren zu einem Thesauruswachstum führen. 3. Es gibt ein logarithmisches Verhältnis zwischen der Zahl von Index-Begriffen pro Aufsatz und dessen Seitenzahl für die Artikeln zwischen einer und einundzwanzig Seiten. 4. Zeitschriftenaufsätze, die in MEDLINE mit Abstracts erscheinen erhalten fast zwei Deskriptoren mehr. 5. Die Findablity der nicht-englisch sprachigen Dokumente in MEDLINE ist geringer als die englische Dokumente. 6. Aufsätze der Zeitschriften mit einem Impact Factor 0 bis fünfzehn erhalten nicht mehr Indexbegriffe als die der anderen von MEDINE erfassten Zeitschriften. 7. In einem Indexierungssystem haben unterschiedliche Zeitschriften mehr oder weniger Gewicht in ihrem Findability. Die Verteilung der Indexbegriffe pro Seite hat gezeigt, dass es bei MEDLINE drei Kategorien der Publikationen gibt. Außerdem gibt es wenige stark bevorzugten Zeitschriften."
  3. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing mit Katalogdaten : Alternative Sicht auf Suchergebnisse und Publikationsquellen durch Re-Ranking (2010) 0.02 
    0.021944785 = product of:
  0.04388957 = sum of:
    0.04388957 = product of:
      0.08777914 = sum of:
        0.08777914 = weight(_text_:dokumente in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08777914 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25999573 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.33761764 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  4. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.02 
    0.021944785 = product of:
  0.04388957 = sum of:
    0.04388957 = product of:
      0.08777914 = sum of:
        0.08777914 = weight(_text_:dokumente in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08777914 = score(doc=4910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25999573 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.33761764 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.092943 = idf(docFreq=737, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertdienste für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die typische Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden in diesem Buch ausführlich beschrieben und evaluiert. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit sind in das GESIS-Projekt IRM eingeflossen.
  5. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.020749787 = product of:
  0.041499574 = sum of:
    0.041499574 = product of:
      0.08299915 = sum of:
        0.08299915 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08299915 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  6. Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015) 0.01 
    0.013833192 = product of:
  0.027666384 = sum of:
    0.027666384 = product of:
      0.05533277 = sum of:
        0.05533277 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05533277 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 17:12:50
  7. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.013833192 = product of:
  0.027666384 = sum of:
    0.027666384 = product of:
      0.05533277 = sum of:
        0.05533277 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05533277 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  8. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.01 
    0.013833192 = product of:
  0.027666384 = sum of:
    0.027666384 = product of:
      0.05533277 = sum of:
        0.05533277 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05533277 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
  9. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.01 
    0.01222693 = product of:
  0.02445386 = sum of:
    0.02445386 = product of:
      0.04890772 = sum of:
        0.04890772 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04890772 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
  10. Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014) 0.01 
    0.01222693 = product of:
  0.02445386 = sum of:
    0.02445386 = product of:
      0.04890772 = sum of:
        0.04890772 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04890772 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.10.2014 20:22:22
  11. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.01 
    0.01222693 = product of:
  0.02445386 = sum of:
    0.02445386 = product of:
      0.04890772 = sum of:
        0.04890772 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04890772 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  12. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.01 
    0.012104043 = product of:
  0.024208086 = sum of:
    0.024208086 = product of:
      0.04841617 = sum of:
        0.04841617 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841617 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  13. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.012104043 = product of:
  0.024208086 = sum of:
    0.024208086 = product of:
      0.04841617 = sum of:
        0.04841617 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841617 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  14. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.01 
    0.012104043 = product of:
  0.024208086 = sum of:
    0.024208086 = product of:
      0.04841617 = sum of:
        0.04841617 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841617 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 14:04:09
  15. Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014) 0.01 
    0.012104043 = product of:
  0.024208086 = sum of:
    0.024208086 = product of:
      0.04841617 = sum of:
        0.04841617 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841617 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 18:22:21
  16. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.01 
    0.010374893 = product of:
  0.020749787 = sum of:
    0.020749787 = product of:
      0.041499574 = sum of:
        0.041499574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041499574 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = 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
  17. Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011) 0.01 
    0.010374893 = product of:
  0.020749787 = sum of:
    0.020749787 = product of:
      0.041499574 = sum of:
        0.041499574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041499574 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
  18. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.01 
    0.010374893 = product of:
  0.020749787 = sum of:
    0.020749787 = product of:
      0.041499574 = sum of:
        0.041499574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041499574 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  19. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.01 
    0.010374893 = product of:
  0.020749787 = sum of:
    0.020749787 = product of:
      0.041499574 = sum of:
        0.041499574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041499574 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
  20. Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012) 0.01 
    0.010374893 = product of:
  0.020749787 = sum of:
    0.020749787 = product of:
      0.041499574 = sum of:
        0.041499574 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041499574 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05105019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:23:32

Authors

Languages

  • e 53
  • d 6

Types

  • a 56
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications