Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.066898555 = product of:
  0.16724639 = sum of:
    0.1538049 = weight(_text_:index in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1538049 = score(doc=6920,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Arts and Humanities Citation Index

0.050512265 = product of:
  0.12628067 = sum of:
    0.107641 = weight(_text_:index in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107641 = score(doc=3632,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.

0.040593963 = product of:
  0.20296982 = sum of:
    0.20296982 = weight(_text_:index in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20296982 = score(doc=3299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        1.092441 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Permuterm Subject Index

0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is possible to locate over 60% of indexing terms used in the Current List of Medical Literature by analysing the titles of the articles. Citation indexes contain 'noise' and lack many pertinent citations. Mechanical indexing or analysis of text must begin with some linguistic technique. Discusses Harris' methods of structural linguistics, discourse analysis and transformational analysis. Provides 3 examples with references, abstracts and index entries

0.0129114855 = product of:
  0.064557426 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=7080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In spite of numerous studies of citation behaviour and the wide recognition by journal editors of the need to acknowledge intellectual debts, authors and referees need explicit reminders as to when formal refrences or acknowledgements are appropriate. Notes a 3 year experiment involving graduate students which demonstrated the varying perceptions of the need for documentation off terminology, ideas and methods. Suggests a tentative tutorial for journal editors that should be modified in each scholarly context

0.012558117 = product of:
  0.06279058 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 3044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3044)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Science citation index

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3465)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This dissertation discusses, explains, and demonstrates a new algorithm for translating chemica l nomenclature into molecular formulas. In order to place the study in its proper context and perspective the historical development of nomenclature is first discussed, aa well as other related aspects of the chemical information problem. The relationship of nomenclature to modern linguistic studies is then introduced. Tire relevance of structural linguistic procedures to the study of chemical nomenclature is shown. The methods of the linguist are illustrated by examples from chemical discourse. The algorithm is then explained, first for the human translator and then for use by a computer. Flow diagrams for the computer syntactic analysis, dictionary Iook-up routine, and furmula calculation routine are included. The sampling procedure for testing the algorithm is explained and finalIy, conclusions are drawn with respect to the general validity of the method and the dirsction that might be taken for future research. A summary of modern chemical nomenclature practice is appened primarily for use by the reader who is not familiar with chemical nomenclature.

0.0062004575 = product of:
  0.031002287 = sum of:
    0.031002287 = product of:
      0.09300686 = sum of:
        0.09300686 = weight(_text_:29 in 2832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09300686 = score(doc=2832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 2832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2832)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Current contents. 29(1989) no.5, S.3-8

0.0038404248 = product of:
  0.019202124 = sum of:
    0.019202124 = product of:
      0.057606373 = sum of:
        0.057606373 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057606373 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.0031002287 = product of:
  0.015501143 = sum of:
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=1606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:52:23

0.0023251716 = product of:
  0.011625858 = sum of:
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 348, 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=348)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 5.2007 12:50:08