共查询到17条相似文献，搜索用时 110 毫秒
1.
结合大量实例介绍了Google Scholar（谷歌学术）、SCIRUS这两个学术搜索引擎的特色及实用的检索技巧。 相似文献
2.
首先对图书馆的学术资源搜索的三种工作模式——本地实时检索模式、本地索引模式和远程联邦检索模式进行了回顾,认为这三种模式只是部分解决了图书馆的需求。紧接着评介了一种对图书馆本地和远程学术资源联合索引的检索模式,认为这是图书馆未来将广泛采用的检索模式。最后,对下一代图书馆学术搜索引擎的三个典型代表SUMMON、Google Scholar学术搜索和SCIRUS等进行了案例分析。 相似文献
3.
中文学术搜索引擎的比较研究 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
本文通过对Google Scholar、CNKI知识搜索、读秀学术搜索、百度国学、雅虎奇摩学术搜索引擎的功能性比较,指出各自的特点、适用范围,以更好地利用学术搜索引擎. 相似文献
4.
Google Scholar在科技论文学术查新中的作用 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
Google Scholar是建立在Google搜索引擎上直接面向科研需要的学术资源的网络搜索工具,为广大学术查新工作者提供了极其方便的条件.阐述Google Scholar在科技论文学术查新中的作用,并分析其不足之处,提出了弥补方法. 相似文献
5.
6.
综合性学术搜索引擎研究 总被引：8，自引：1，他引：8
选择了四种当前国外典型的可免费使用的综合性学术搜索引擎Google Scholar、Scir-us、BASE、Athenus进行了研究,分析了各自的特色,对比了它们的资源覆盖范围、检索功能和检索效果,提出了当前这类学术搜索引擎存在的主要问题:资源的学术质量问题、检索结果的归并与去重问题、相关性排序问题。在此基础上,探讨了其对图书情报机构、用户和资源供应商的有利和不利的影响。 相似文献
7.
近期．中国国家图书馆对外开放了针对馆藏的检索．读者通过Google Scholar（学术资源搜索）就可以检索到国家图书馆的书目数据，国家图书馆由此成为中国第一个加入Google Scholar的LibraryLink（图书馆链接）的图书馆，实现了国家图书馆数字资源门户与Google Scholar的链接。 相似文献
8.
9.
Scirus还是Google Scholar?——两种专业搜索引擎对比分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
综合性搜索引擎很难满足用户的专业搜索要求,而像Scirus和Google Scholar这样的专业科学搜索引擎弥补了其检索专业信息的很多缺陷.本文主要对两种搜索引擎的收录范围、检索功能、查询结果及其不足等方面进行对比分析. 相似文献
10.
Google Scholar Beta检索性能的初步分析 总被引：6，自引：1，他引：6
利用多个医学提问，通过对Google Scholar Beta、PubMed、ISI Science Citation Index Expanded、CrossRef Search、Scirus等工具检索结果的对比，分析 Google Scholar Beta 测试版搜索引擎在学术信息检索中的性能表现，特别是检索的查全率、结果的相关性、文献被引用检索等方面的性能，指出其存在的不足，并对该搜索引擎对图书馆跨库查询方案的影响进行初步探讨。 相似文献
11.
Google Scholar的利用与评价 总被引：5，自引：0，他引：5
Google Scho1ar是一项具有开创性的互联网学术文献搜索服务。介绍了其概况、使用方法及用途，并对其进行了简要的评价。强调中国学者应早日了解并充分利用这一重要工具，为学术工作及研究服务。 相似文献
12.
个性化跨语言学术搜索技术研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
学术搜索引擎是一种行业化的搜索引擎,但因其缺乏个性化的服务,使得用户的学术文献检索效率低下,海量的数字学术资源得不到充分利用.本文使用Google翻译,研究基于机器翻译的中、英、俄、法和西班牙等五个语种跨语言学术检索.在跨语言学术搜索的基础上研究个性化检索技术,提出一种基于聚类的个性化信息检索方法:通过观察用户对搜索结果聚类的点击行为,生成并更新用户实时兴趣模型,采用余弦夹角公式计算用户实时兴趣模型与搜索返回结果的相似度,根据相似度大小,为用户提供个性化重排序的搜索返回结果.实验结果证明了提出方法的有效性. 相似文献
13.
Rebecca B. French 《Journal of Web Librarianship》2019,13(2):156-197
Information about faculty and their publications can be found in library databases such as the Library of Congress Name Authority File, VIAF, WorldCat, and institutional repositories; in identifier registries such as ORCID and ISNI; and on academic social networking sites such as Academia, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate, but the way search engines use such identifiers and profiles is unclear. Therefore, researchers at a large comprehensive university conducted several rounds of web searching before and after the creation and modification of faculty authority records. The sample consisted of 24 faculty and the 35 publications associated with their authorities. The researchers searched for the faculty and their publications on the social networking and identity websites directly, and then used Google, Bing, and Google Scholar to record which of the faculty members’ profiles and publications were found within the top 50 results. Faculty with more profiles were more visible in search engine results, and faculty with authority records ranked more highly in Google. Results related to publication discovery and ranking were more inconclusive, but revealed clear differences between search tools. The implications of this exploratory research can support educational efforts about academic identities and scholarly profiles, begin a research agenda, and inform methodological development surrounding the influence of identity records and academic social networking profiles on web visibility. 相似文献
14.
Charlie Potter 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):5-28
ABSTRACT In order to understand better and explain the practices of Google Scholar, this essay takes a rhetorical and holistic look at the search technology, language, and sociopolitical implications of the Google Scholar interface as well as the connection between Google Scholar and the actions of the Google Corporation. The relationship between Google Scholar and the academic library is also explored. In addition, the essay offers ways to encourage students to undertake this kind of critique in the information literacy classroom. 相似文献
15.
Organizing information on a Website is vital to retrieve information from Websites and the Internet. This study investigates the establishing of navigation and search systems needed to organize information on academic Websites, and addresses key questions in relation to information access and to the use of these systems. This is achieved through the evaluation of two Websites (Dhofar in Oman and Monash in Australia) and their comparison with Google, using standard criteria identified in the literature. The outcomes will support designers of academic Websites and will support students in accessing and retrieving information. The main findings of this research is that Google and Monash University Websites have established search and navigation systems that support Website accessibility, which enhance site usability while Dhofar University Website uses navigation systems only because of content reasons. 相似文献
16.
Organizing information on a Website is vital to retrieve information from Websites and the Internet. This study investigates the establishing of navigation and search systems needed to organize information on academic Websites, and addresses key questions in relation to information access and to the use of these systems. This is achieved through the evaluation of two Websites (Dhofar in Oman and Monash in Australia) and their comparison with Google, using standard criteria identified in the literature. The outcomes will support designers of academic Websites and will support students in accessing and retrieving information. The main findings of this research is that Google and Monash University Websites have established search and navigation systems that support Website accessibility, which enhance site usability while Dhofar University Website uses navigation systems only because of content reasons. 相似文献
17.
首先阐述在数字科研时代,在学术交流渠道多元化、网络化的环境下,谷歌学术搜索(Google Scholar)可作为计算机科学领域引文分析的数据源的原因。然后,对目前自动化地采集Google Scholar的引文数据的现状进行概述;进而以统计图灵奖获得者所发表论文的年度引文频次为例,着重阐述如何利用Google Scholar引擎的引文搜索功能设计相关程序,实现对论文各年度被引频次的自动统计;最后,将该方法与Web of Science进行比较,并对实现过程中遇到的问题进行总结。 相似文献