Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 6113, 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=6113)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38