Search (727 results, page 37 of 37)

0.0029918728 = product of:
  0.017951237 = sum of:
    0.017951237 = weight(_text_:und in 927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017951237 = score(doc=927,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 927, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=927)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 49(2002) H.4, S.227-231

0.0026674224 = product of:
  0.016004534 = sum of:
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 228, 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=228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0026674224 = product of:
  0.016004534 = sum of:
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.0026674224 = product of:
  0.016004534 = sum of:
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=3011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3011, 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=3011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:05:56

0.0026674224 = product of:
  0.016004534 = sum of:
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

12.11.2020 13:22:09

0.0021339378 = product of:
  0.012803626 = sum of:
    0.012803626 = product of:
      0.025607252 = sum of:
        0.025607252 = weight(_text_:22 in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025607252 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)

0.0010685261 = product of:
  0.006411156 = sum of:
    0.006411156 = weight(_text_:und in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006411156 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.06121907 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Standardwerk mit Bezug zum anglo-amerikanischen Verständnis von 'Reference work', das zwar Vorbild für viele Betrachtungen in der deutschen Literatur und in deutschen Bibliotheken ist, das aber bis heute keine Entsprechung in der bibliothekarischen Praxis gefunden hat