Search (4766 results, page 1 of 239)

0.488894 = product of:
  0.977788 = sum of:
    0.039729316 = weight(_text_:und in 258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039729316 = score(doc=258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13510862 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.29405463 = fieldWeight in 258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=258)
    0.9380587 = weight(_text_:hearing in 258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.9380587 = score(doc=258,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.5520584 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        1.699202 = fieldWeight in 258, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=258)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Bericht über ein Hearing am 30.11.2001 in Berlin

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.2, S.102-104

0.13703749 = product of:
  0.27407497 = sum of:
    0.05297242 = weight(_text_:und in 6503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05297242 = score(doc=6503,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.13510862 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.39207286 = fieldWeight in 6503, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6503)
    0.22110255 = weight(_text_:hearing in 6503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22110255 = score(doc=6503,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5520584 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.40050572 = fieldWeight in 6503, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6503)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Der Zugang zu Informationen des öffentlichen Sektors ist seit den 80er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts ein Thema, das die Europäische Kommission und nationale Regierungen beschäftigte. Die rasante Durchdringung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft mit informationstechnischen Einrichtungen hat seine Bedeutung wachsen lassen. Aufgrund leerer öffentlicher Kassen wächst das Interesse daran auch unter den beiden Gesichtspunkten Einsparung von Personal für Recherchen und Auskünfte in der öffentlichen Verwaltung sowie Vermarktung von Informationen des öffentlichen Sektors, und dies nicht nur auf der nationalen, sondern auch auf der internationalen Bühne. Dies wurde beispielsweise durch die explizite Aufnahme dieses Themas in das Europäische INFO 2000-Programm von 1996 deutlich, in dein der Zugang zu und zum ersten Mal auch die Vermarktung von Informationen des öffentlichen Sektors, eine wichtige Aktionslinie wurden. Im Rahmen dieses Programms stellte die Kommission Mitte 1996 den ersten Entwurf des Grünbuches zum Thema Informationen des öffentlichen Sektors fertig Anfang 1999 wurde es dann nach vielen Überarbeitungen veröffentlicht. Behandelt werden vorrangig Fragen des Datenschutzes, des Urheberrechts, der Haftung, der Zugangsrechte und der Vermarktung. Es folgte eine breite öffentliche Diskussion. Zwei von insgesamt 14 Diskussionsveranstaltungen fanden im Mai 1999 in Deutschland statt. Am 25. Mai gab es in Brüssel ein öffentliches Hearing, an dem etwa zweihundert Interessierte aus ganz Europa teilnahmen, die Hälfte davon aus Belgien, nur sieben aus Deutschland. Ferner sammelte die Kommission bis Oktober 1999 schriftliche Stellungnahmen, die größtenteils auch im WWW zugänglich sind (http://156.169.50.95:10080/info2000/en/publicsector/gp_comments.html). Aus Deutschland kamen insgesamt fünfzehn Beiträge, neben Privatpersonen und Anwaltskanzleien u.a. vorn Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger, den Ländern Brandenburg und Rheinland-Pfalz, dem Deutschen Dachverband für Geoinformation, der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Vermessungsverwaltungen der Länder (AdV) sowie ARD und ZDF

Series

Gemeinsamer Kongress der Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände e.V. (BDB) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. (DGI); Bd.1)(Tagungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V.; Bd.3

Source

Information und Öffentlichkeit: 1. Gemeinsamer Kongress der Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände e.V. (BDB) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. (DGI), Leipzig, 20.-23.3.2000. Zugleich 90. Deutscher Bibliothekartag, 52. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. (DGI). Hrsg.: G. Ruppelt u. H. Neißer

0.1071916 = product of:
  0.4287664 = sum of:
    0.4287664 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4287664 = score(doc=6714,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        1.043413 = fieldWeight in 6714, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6714)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 52(2001) no.7, S.599-600 (L.I.G. Toldo)

0.09187852 = product of:
  0.36751407 = sum of:
    0.36751407 = weight(_text_:jasis in 5593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36751407 = score(doc=5593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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

0.09187852 = product of:
  0.36751407 = sum of:
    0.36751407 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36751407 = score(doc=6535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.8943541 = fieldWeight in 6535, 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=6535)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 52(2001) no.2, S.183 (B. Hjoerland)

0.09187852 = product of:
  0.36751407 = sum of:
    0.36751407 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36751407 = score(doc=6754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.8943541 = fieldWeight in 6754, 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=6754)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 52(2001) no.6, S.512-513 (K. Spern)

0.09187852 = product of:
  0.36751407 = sum of:
    0.36751407 = weight(_text_:jasis in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36751407 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.8943541 = fieldWeight in 65, 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=65)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 52(2001) no.6, S.509-510 (G. Benoit)

0.08291345 = product of:
  0.3316538 = sum of:
    0.3316538 = weight(_text_:hearing in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3316538 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5520584 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.60075855 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was a significant milestone in congressional information policy legislation. However, the results were widely criticized in some circles as providing too much Power to certain stakeholder groups. This paper uses computerbased content analysis and a theoretical taxonomy of information policy values to analyze congressional hearing testimony. The results of document coding were then analyzed using a variety of statistical tools to map how different stakeholders framed issues in the debate and determine if congressional value statements about the legislation conformed more closely to certain stakeholders. Results of the analysis indicate that significant differences in the use of information policy terms occurred across stakeholders, and showed varying degrees of convergence between congressional or other stakeholders when framing information policy issues.

0.08291345 = product of:
  0.3316538 = sum of:
    0.3316538 = weight(_text_:hearing in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3316538 = score(doc=11,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5520584 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.60075855 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Understanding and modeling human experience and emotional response when listening to music are important for better understanding of the stylistic choices in musical composition. In this work, we explore the relation of audio signal structure to human perceptual and emotional reactions. Memory, repetition, and anticipatory structure have been suggested as some of the major factors in music that might influence and possibly shape these responses. The audio analysis was conducted on two recordings of an extended contemporary musical composition by one of the authors. Signal properties were analyzed using statistical analyses of signal similarities over time and information theoretic measures of signal redundancy. They were then compared to Familiarity Rating and Emotional Force profiles, as recorded continually by listeners hearing the two versions of the piece in a live-concert setting. The analysis shows strong evidence that signal properties and human reactions are related, suggesting applications of these techniques to music understanding and music information-retrieval systems.

0.07877132 = product of:
  0.15754265 = sum of:
    0.12250469 = weight(_text_:jasis in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250469 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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)
    0.035037965 = weight(_text_:und in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035037965 = score(doc=572,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13510862 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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."

0.07656543 = product of:
  0.30626172 = sum of:
    0.30626172 = weight(_text_:jasis in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30626172 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.74529505 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 51(2000) no.11, S.1062-1063 (T.A. Brooks): "This is an excellent book that could serve as a textbook in the area"

0.07656543 = product of:
  0.30626172 = sum of:
    0.30626172 = weight(_text_:jasis in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30626172 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.74529505 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735

0.0535958 = product of:
  0.2143832 = sum of:
    0.2143832 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2143832 = score(doc=6760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.5217065 = fieldWeight in 6760, 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=6760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 52(2001) no.4, S.365-366 (C. Hanson)

0.0535958 = product of:
  0.2143832 = sum of:
    0.2143832 = weight(_text_:jasis in 4877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2143832 = score(doc=4877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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.

0.04593926 = product of:
  0.18375704 = sum of:
    0.18375704 = weight(_text_:jasis in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18375704 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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

0.038282715 = product of:
  0.15313086 = sum of:
    0.15313086 = weight(_text_:jasis in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15313086 = score(doc=30,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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

0.034547273 = product of:
  0.13818909 = sum of:
    0.13818909 = weight(_text_:hearing in 2182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13818909 = score(doc=2182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5520584 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.25031608 = fieldWeight in 2182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Consider a sentence such as "the current price of tea in China is 35 cents per pound." In a library with millions of books we might find many statements of the above form that we could capture today with relatively simple rules: rather than pursuing every variation of a statement, programs can wait, like predators at a water hole, for their informational prey to reappear in a standard linguistic pattern. We can make inferences from sentences such as "NAME1 born at NAME2 in DATE" that NAME more likely than not represents a person and NAME a place and then convert the statement into a proposition about a person born at a given place and time. The changing price of tea in China, pedestrian birth and death dates, or other basic statements may not be truth and beauty in the Phaedrus, but a digital library that could plot the prices of various commodities in different markets over time, plot the various lifetimes of individuals, or extract and classify many events would be very useful. Services such as the Syllabus Finder1 and H-Bot2 (which Dan Cohen describes elsewhere in this issue of D-Lib) represent examples of information extraction already in use. H-Bot, in particular, builds on our evolving ability to extract information from very large corpora such as the billions of web pages available through the Google API. Aside from identifying higher order statements, however, users also want to search and browse named entities: they want to read about "C. P. E. Bach" rather than his father "Johann Sebastian" or about "Cambridge, Maryland", without hearing about "Cambridge, Massachusetts", Cambridge in the UK or any of the other Cambridges scattered around the world. Named entity identification is a well-established area with an ongoing literature. The Natural Language Processing Research Group at the University of Sheffield has developed its open source Generalized Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) for years, while IBM's Unstructured Information Analysis and Search (UIMA) is "available as open source software to provide a common foundation for industry and academia." Powerful tools are thus freely available and more demanding users can draw upon published literature to develop their own systems. Major search engines such as Google and Yahoo also integrate increasingly sophisticated tools to categorize and identify places. The software resources are rich and expanding. The reference works on which these systems depend, however, are ill-suited for historical analysis. First, simple gazetteers and similar authority lists quickly grow too big for useful information extraction. They provide us with potential entities against which to match textual references, but existing electronic reference works assume that human readers can use their knowledge of geography and of the immediate context to pick the right Boston from the Bostons in the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), but, with the crucial exception of geographic location, the TGN records do not provide any machine readable clues: we cannot tell which Bostons are large or small. If we are analyzing a document published in 1818, we cannot filter out those places that did not yet exist or that had different names: "Jefferson Davis" is not the name of a parish in Louisiana (tgn,2000880) or a county in Mississippi (tgn,2001118) until after the Civil War.

0.030626172 = product of:
  0.12250469 = sum of:
    0.12250469 = weight(_text_:jasis in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250469 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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

0.030626172 = product of:
  0.12250469 = sum of:
    0.12250469 = weight(_text_:jasis in 2877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250469 = score(doc=2877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = queryNorm
        0.29811803 = fieldWeight in 2877, 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=2877)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 54(2003) no.12, S.1168-1170 (A.D. Petrou): "Computers as persuasive technology, or Captology, is the topic of the ten chapters in B.J. Fogg's book. As the author states, the main focus of Captology is not an computer mediated communications (CMC), but rather an human computer interaction (HCI). Furthermore, according to the author, "captology focuses an the design, research, and analysis of interactive computing products created for the purpose of changing people's attitudes or behaviors. It describes the areas where technology and persuasion overlap" (p. 5). Each of the book's chapters presents theories, arguments, and examples to convince readers of a large and growing part that computing products play in persuading people to change their behaviors for the better in a variety of areas. Currently, some of the areas for which B.J. Fogg considers computing products as persuasive or influential in motivating individuals to change their behaviors include quitting smoking, practicing safer sex, eating healthier, staying in shape, improving study habits, and helping doctors develop richer empathy for the pain experienced by their patients. In the wrong hands, however, B.J. Fogg wams, the computer's power to persuade can be enlisted to support unethical social ends and to serve corporate interests that deliver no real benefits to consumers. While Captology's concerns about the ethical side of computing products as persuasive tools are summarized in a chapter an ethics, they are also incorporated as short reminders throughout the book's ten chapters. A strength of the book, however, is that the author does not take it for granted that readers will agree with him an the persuasive power for computers. In addition to the technical and social theories he articulates, B .J. Fogg presents empirical evidence from his own research and also provides many examples of computing products designed to persuade people to change their behaviors. Computers can be designed to be highly interactive and to include many modalities for persuasion to match different situations and human personalities, such as submissive or dominant. Furthermore, computers may allow for anonymity in use and can be ubiquitous. ... Yet, there is no denying an effectiveness in the arguments and empirical data put forth by B.J. Fogg about Captology's power to explain how a merging of technology with techniques of persuasion can help change human behavior for the better. The widespread influence of computing products and a need to ethically manage such influence over human behavior should command our attention as users and researchers and most importantly as designers and producers of computing products."

0.030626172 = product of:
  0.12250469 = sum of:
    0.12250469 = weight(_text_:jasis in 171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250469 = score(doc=171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41092682 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7456408 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06091739 = 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.