-
¬The Web of knowledge : Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000)
0.03
0.031216865 = product of:
0.093650594 = sum of:
0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0137827825 = score(doc=461,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
0.07986781 = weight(_text_:u in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07986781 = score(doc=461,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.5116319 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Editor
- Cronin, B. u. H.B. Atkins
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.1, S.45-46 (M.J. López Huertas u. E. Jiménez-Contreras); Password 2002, H.3, S.14-19 (W.G. Stock)
-
Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006)
0.03
0.029084945 = product of:
0.05816989 = sum of:
0.012892614 = weight(_text_:in in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012892614 = score(doc=225,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028237537 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.017039739 = product of:
0.034079477 = sum of:
0.034079477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034079477 = score(doc=225,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Abstract
- Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Fröhlich, G.: ¬Das Messen des leicht Meßbaren : Output-Indikatoren, Impact-Maße: Artefakte der Szeintometrie? (1999)
0.02
0.022073656 = product of:
0.06622097 = sum of:
0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0097459 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056475073 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Footnote
- Zuerst publiziert in: Kommunikation statt Markt: Zu einer alternativen Theorie der Informationsgesellschaft. Hrsg.: J. Becker u. W. Göhring. Sankt Augustin: GMD. (GMD Report; 61) S.27-38.
-
Korwitz, U.: Welchen 'Rang' hat ein Wissenschaftler? (1995)
0.02
0.018735427 = product of:
0.056206282 = sum of:
0.011026227 = weight(_text_:in in 2318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011026227 = score(doc=2318,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2318, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2318)
0.045180056 = weight(_text_:u in 2318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045180056 = score(doc=2318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 2318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2318)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Für die Einschätzung der Relevanz der Arbeit von Wissenschaftlern wird in zunehmendem Maße deren Publikationsverhalten als Bewertungskriterium eingesetzt. Hierbei sind vor allem die Zahl der Publikationen sowie die wissenschaftliche Reputation des jeweiligen zeitschriftentitels von zentraler Bedeutung. Die vorliegenden Ausführungen geben einen kurzen Einblick in die Probleme bei der Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Tätigkeit mit Hilfe der Zitationsanalyse
-
Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004)
0.02
0.017725604 = product of:
0.05317681 = sum of:
0.0136442585 = weight(_text_:in in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0136442585 = score(doc=1259,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
0.03953255 = weight(_text_:u in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03953255 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.02
0.01728893 = product of:
0.051866792 = sum of:
0.0067521576 = weight(_text_:in in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0067521576 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.045114636 = sum of:
0.019278264 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019278264 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.025836375 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025836375 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
MacCain, K.W.: Descriptor and citation retrieval in the medical behavioral sciences literature : retrieval overlaps and novelty distribution (1989)
0.02
0.016163977 = product of:
0.04849193 = sum of:
0.013075498 = weight(_text_:in in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013075498 = score(doc=2290,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
0.03541643 = product of:
0.07083286 = sum of:
0.07083286 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07083286 = score(doc=2290,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance
-
Garfield, E.: Agony and ecstasy of the Internet : experiences of an information scientist qua publisher (1996)
0.02
0.01545156 = product of:
0.046354678 = sum of:
0.0068221292 = weight(_text_:in in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0068221292 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3044, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3044)
0.03953255 = weight(_text_:u in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03953255 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3044, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3044)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Reports recent experiences with the publishing, via the Internet and WWW of ISI's biweekly newspaper, The Scientist; which was originally mounted on the NSFnet. Compares the use of the Internet for SDI by comparing Web searches via AltaVista with similar searches on CD-ROM. Predicts that future current awareness services and SDI services will be linked to electronic periodicals in electronic libraries. Concludes with a note on cited reference searching, a variation on the theme of hypertext searching, with particular reference to SCI and Web crawlers
- Source
- Towards a worldwide library: a ten year forecast. Proceedings of the 19th International Essen Symposium, 23-26 Sept 1996. Ed.: A.H. Helal u. J.W. Weiss
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.015359417 = product of:
0.04607825 = sum of:
0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0137827825 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.03229547 = product of:
0.06459094 = sum of:
0.06459094 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06459094 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Content
- Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993)
0.01
0.014899192 = product of:
0.044697575 = sum of:
0.017433995 = weight(_text_:in in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017433995 = score(doc=3741,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
0.027263582 = product of:
0.054527164 = sum of:
0.054527164 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054527164 = score(doc=3741,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
-
Yoon, L.L.: ¬The performance of cited references as an approach to information retrieval (1994)
0.01
0.013677781 = product of:
0.041033342 = sum of:
0.011816275 = weight(_text_:in in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011816275 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
0.029217066 = product of:
0.058434132 = sum of:
0.058434132 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058434132 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question
-
He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001)
0.01
0.012395689 = product of:
0.037187066 = sum of:
0.00826967 = weight(_text_:in in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00826967 = score(doc=4806,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.028917395 = product of:
0.05783479 = sum of:
0.05783479 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05783479 = score(doc=4806,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.01
0.012246094 = product of:
0.03673828 = sum of:
0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011695079 = score(doc=444,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.0250432 = product of:
0.0500864 = sum of:
0.0500864 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0500864 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
- Series
- Reviews of Concepts in Knowledge Organization
-
Safder, I.; Ali, M.; Aljohani, N.R.; Nawaz, R.; Hassan, S.-U.: Neural machine translation for in-text citation classification (2023)
0.01
0.012225911 = product of:
0.036677733 = sum of:
0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008440197 = score(doc=1053,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028237537 = score(doc=1053,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The quality of scientific publications can be measured by quantitative indices such as the h-index, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, or g-index. However, these measures lack to explain the function or reasons for citations and the context of citations from citing publication to cited publication. We argue that citation context may be considered while calculating the impact of research work. However, mining citation context from unstructured full-text publications is a challenging task. In this paper, we compiled a data set comprising 9,518 citations context. We developed a deep learning-based architecture for citation context classification. Unlike feature-based state-of-the-art models, our proposed focal-loss and class-weight-aware BiLSTM model with pretrained GloVe embedding vectors use citation context as input to outperform them in multiclass citation context classification tasks. Our model improves on the baseline state-of-the-art by achieving an F1 score of 0.80 with an accuracy of 0.81 for citation context classification. Moreover, we delve into the effects of using different word embeddings on the performance of the classification model and draw a comparison between fastText, GloVe, and spaCy pretrained word embeddings.
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.012083696 = product of:
0.036251087 = sum of:
0.0136442585 = weight(_text_:in in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0136442585 = score(doc=40,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.022606827 = product of:
0.045213655 = sum of:
0.045213655 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045213655 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.01
0.011972207 = product of:
0.03591662 = sum of:
0.01653934 = weight(_text_:in in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01653934 = score(doc=4215,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
0.01937728 = product of:
0.03875456 = sum of:
0.03875456 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03875456 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.011891096 = product of:
0.035673287 = sum of:
0.00826967 = weight(_text_:in in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00826967 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.027403615 = product of:
0.05480723 = sum of:
0.05480723 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05480723 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.2: the optimal, cluster-based retrieval performance of composite representations (1991)
0.01
0.011686767 = product of:
0.0350603 = sum of:
0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007796719 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
0.027263582 = product of:
0.054527164 = sum of:
0.054527164 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054527164 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.01
0.011616139 = product of:
0.034848414 = sum of:
0.015471136 = weight(_text_:in in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015471136 = score(doc=3692,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
0.01937728 = product of:
0.03875456 = sum of:
0.03875456 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03875456 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
-
wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003)
0.01
0.011616139 = product of:
0.034848414 = sum of:
0.015471136 = weight(_text_:in in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015471136 = score(doc=1270,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
0.01937728 = product of:
0.03875456 = sum of:
0.03875456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03875456 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047673445 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Content
- "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
