Here's some data that might be interesting to play with: "The Early
on JSTOR includes journal articles published in the United States
before 1923 and articles published in other countries before 1870, and
includes discourse and scholarship in the arts and humanities,
economics and politics, and in mathematics and other sciences."
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Matt Amory <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Cindy,
> I was thinking that Hathi or eBrary or Google Books or OCLC data could be
> good benchmarks too.
> I'm also fascinated by trying to OCR extant copies of National
> Bibliographies to get a historical take on the same issue (that's what I
> meant by "historical").
> Something like a Google nGram for the history of thinkers and cultural
> influences based on citations rather than just mentions would be super kewl
> to look at!
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Cindy Harper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I've thought about this often. Several years ago, I tried setting up
>> successive searches of books.google.com with searches like <author> and
>> <title>, to try to find author/title mentions of the works in our
>> collection. I only found, after I'd finished, that I could have used the
>> syntax <author> NEAR3 <title> (I think that's the proper connector - or was
>> it WITHIN or AROUND?) to tighten up the connections. I then saved the hit
>> counts to be able to display results in ranked order by general call number
>> I'm looking at repeating this with the improved search syntax, or
>> repeating it in the HathiTrust corpus. I asked Google for permission to do
>> this project, but of course I never got an answer.
>> Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian
>> Colgate University Libraries
>> [log in to unmask]
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Matt Amory <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Is anyone involved with, or does anyone know of any project to extract and
>>> aggregate bibliography data from individual works to produce some kind of
>>> "most-cited" authors list across a collection? Local/Network/Digital/OCLC
>>> or historic?
>>> Sorry to be vague, but I'm trying to get my head around whether this is a
>>> tired old idea or worth pursuing...