Search (144 results, page 1 of 8)

0.122398324 = product of:
  0.4895933 = sum of:
    0.4895933 = weight(_text_:jasis in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4895933 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        1.0540063 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

JASIS

0.10385843 = product of:
  0.41543373 = sum of:
    0.41543373 = weight(_text_:jasis in 5593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.41543373 = score(doc=5593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.8943541 = fieldWeight in 5593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching

0.10385843 = product of:
  0.41543373 = sum of:
    0.41543373 = weight(_text_:jasis in 5822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.41543373 = score(doc=5822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.8943541 = fieldWeight in 5822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5822)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez in: JASIS 47(1996) no.3, S.257-258 (V. Raghavan)

0.08904222 = product of:
  0.17808443 = sum of:
    0.1384779 = weight(_text_:jasis in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1384779 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.29811803 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.03960652 = weight(_text_:und in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03960652 = score(doc=572,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15272525 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.25933182 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 61(2010) no.1, S.205-207 (Jeppe Nicolaisen) Weitere Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.134-135 (J. Gorraiz u. M. Wieland): "Das Buch entwickelte sich aus einem mehrjährigen Forschungsprojekt mit dem Ziel, den schwer verständlichen quantitativen Kern der Bibliometrie in einem für primär italienische Bibliothekare leichteren historischen und philosophischen Kontext zu vermitteln, wie der Autor im Vorwort erklärt. Dank einer Empfehlung von Eugene Garfield steht dieses Werk nun auch in englischer Übersetzung einer internationalen Leserschaft zur Verfügung. Die über 400 Seiten lange Monografie von de Bellis gibt in acht Kapiteln einen detaillierten und sehr präzisen Überblick über die Bibliometrie und die Zitationsanalyse, ihre Natur und Entwicklung, ihre Kontroverse und Prognose. . . . Das Buch von de Bellis ist sehr empfehlenswert für alle die beabsichtigen, sich mit dieser neuen Wissenschaft zu beschäftigen. Es endet mit folgendem Statement: "Scientometricians have to learn to live in a multidimensional world". Und genau hier liegt die Herausforderung und Schönheit dieses Metiers."

0.06058408 = product of:
  0.24233632 = sum of:
    0.24233632 = weight(_text_:jasis in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24233632 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.5217065 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 49(1998) no.7, S.670 (M. Afifi)

0.06058408 = product of:
  0.24233632 = sum of:
    0.24233632 = weight(_text_:jasis in 4877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24233632 = score(doc=4877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.5217065 = fieldWeight in 4877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4877)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Like most activities in the world, scientific evolution has its own rhythm. How can this evolutionary rhythm be described and made visible? Do different fields have different rhythms, and how can they be measured? In order to answer these questions a relative indicator, called R-sequence, was designed. This indicator is time dependent, derived from publication and citation data, but independent of the absolute number of publications, as weIl as the absolute number of citations, and can therefore be used in a comparison of different scientific fields, nations, Institutes, or journals. Two caiculation methods of the R-sequence-the triangle method and the parallelogram method-are introduced. As a case study JASIS(T)'s R-sequence has been obtained.

0.059497003 = product of:
  0.118994005 = sum of:
    0.047338843 = weight(_text_:und in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047338843 = score(doc=4081,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15272525 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.3099608 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
    0.07165516 = weight(_text_:headings in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07165516 = score(doc=4081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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."

Footnote

Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.051929217 = product of:
  0.20771687 = sum of:
    0.20771687 = weight(_text_:jasis in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20771687 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.44717705 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts

0.051929217 = product of:
  0.20771687 = sum of:
    0.20771687 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20771687 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.44717705 = fieldWeight in 6685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6685)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof

0.04433437 = product of:
  0.17733748 = sum of:
    0.17733748 = weight(_text_:headings in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17733748 = score(doc=1862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.5307314 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings

0.043274343 = product of:
  0.17309737 = sum of:
    0.17309737 = weight(_text_:jasis in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17309737 = score(doc=30,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.37264752 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study is a follow-up to a published Correspondence Factorial Analysis (CFA) of a dataset of over 6 million bibliometric entries (Doré et al. JASIS, 47(8), 588-602,1996), which compared the publication output patterns of 48 countries in 18 disciplines over a 12-year period (1981-1992). It analyzes by methods suitable for investigating short time series how these output patterns evolved over the 12-year span. Three types of approach are described. (1) the chi**2 distances of the publication output patterns from the center of gravity of the multidimensional system-which represents an average world pattern-were calculated for each country and for each year. We noted whether the patterns moved toward or away from the center with time; (2) individual annual output patterns were introduced as supplementary variables into an existing global overview covering the whole time-span [CFA map of (countries x disciplines)]. We observed how these patterns moved about within the map year by year; (3) the matrix (disciplines x time) was analyzed by CFA to derive time trends for each country. CFA revealed the "inner clocks" governing publication trends. The time scale that best fitted the data was not a linear but an elastic scale. Although different countries laid emphasis on publication in different disciplines, the overall tendency was toward greater uniformity in publication patterns with time

0.03800089 = product of:
  0.15200356 = sum of:
    0.15200356 = weight(_text_:headings in 1494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15200356 = score(doc=1494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

0.03800089 = product of:
  0.15200356 = sum of:
    0.15200356 = weight(_text_:headings in 1943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15200356 = score(doc=1943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

0.034619477 = product of:
  0.1384779 = sum of:
    0.1384779 = weight(_text_:jasis in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1384779 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.29811803 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the author's three previous articles dealing with the ICR phenomenon (JASIS, 49, 1998, 477-481; 50, 1999, 1284-1294; JASIST, 52, 2001, 201-211) the nature, life course, and importance of this phenomenon of scientific literature was demonstrated. It was shown that the quantity of nonindexed indirect-collective references in The Physical Review now alone exceeds many times over the quantity of formal references listed in the Science Citation Index as "citations." It was shown that the ICR phenomenon is present in all the 44 elite physics journals of a representative sample of this literature. The bibliometrically very heterogeneous sample is very homogeneous regarding the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon. However, no real connection could be found between the simple degree of documentedness and the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon on the journal level of the sample. The present article reports the findings of the latest ICR investigation carried out on the level of communications of the representative sample. Correlation calculations were carried out in the stock of all 458 communications containing the ICR phenomenon as a statistical population, and within this population also in the groups of communications of the "normal" and the "letter" journals, and the "short communications." The correlation analysis did not find notable statistical correlation between the simple and specific degree of documentedness of a communication and the number of works cited in it by ICR act(s) either in the total population or in the selected groups. There is no correlation either statistical or real (i.e., cause-and-effect) between the documentedness of scientific communications made by their authors and the presence and intensity of the ICR method used by their authors. However, in reality there exists a very strong connection between these two statistically independent variables: both depend on the referencing author, on his/her subjectivity and barely limited subjective free will. This subjective free will shapes the stock of the formal-direct references of scientific communications, thereby placing the achievements cited in this way and their creators into the (indexed) showcase of present Big Science. The same free will decides on the use or nonuse of the ICR method, and in the case of use also on the intensity with which the method is used

0.034619477 = product of:
  0.1384779 = sum of:
    0.1384779 = weight(_text_:jasis in 171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1384779 = score(doc=171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46450698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.29811803 = fieldWeight in 171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=171)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.026870685 = product of:
  0.10748274 = sum of:
    0.10748274 = weight(_text_:headings in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10748274 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.

0.026870685 = product of:
  0.10748274 = sum of:
    0.10748274 = weight(_text_:headings in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10748274 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.026870685 = product of:
  0.10748274 = sum of:
    0.10748274 = weight(_text_:headings in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10748274 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33413792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.022687484 = product of:
  0.090749934 = sum of:
    0.090749934 = weight(_text_:und in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090749934 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15272525 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.5942039 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Psychologie und Philosophie der Grazer Schule: eine Dokumentation zu Werk und Wirkungsgeschichte. Hrsg.: M. Stock und W.G. Stock

0.022454783 = product of:
  0.08981913 = sum of:
    0.08981913 = weight(_text_:und in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08981913 = score(doc=76,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15272525 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06886032 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979