Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.039718196 = sum of:
  0.017988488 = product of:
    0.07195395 = sum of:
      0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07195395 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021729708 = product of:
    0.043459415 = sum of:
      0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043459415 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.

0.010599819 = product of:
  0.021199638 = sum of:
    0.021199638 = product of:
      0.08479855 = sum of:
        0.08479855 = weight(_text_:authors in 5252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08479855 = score(doc=5252,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5252, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5252)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Measuring the relatedness between bibliometric units (journals, documents, authors, or words) is a central task in bibliometric analysis. Relatedness measures are used for many different tasks, among them the generating of maps, or visual pictures, showing the relationship between all items from these data. Despite the importance of these tasks, there has been little written an how to quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of relatedness measures or the resulting maps. The authors propose a new framework for assessing the performance of relatedness measures and visualization algorithms that contains four factors: accuracy, coverage, scalability, and robustness. This method was applied to 10 measures of journal-journal relatedness to determine the best measure. The 10 relatedness measures were then used as inputs to a visualization algorithm to create an additional 10 measures of journal-journal relatedness based an the distances between pairs of journals in two-dimensional space. This second step determines robustness (i.e., which measure remains best after dimension reduction). Results show that, for low coverage (under 50%), the Pearson correlation is the most accurate raw relatedness measure. However, the best overall measure, both at high coverage, and after dimension reduction, is the cosine index or a modified cosine index. Results also showed that the visualization algorithm increased local accuracy for most measures. Possible reasons for this counterintuitive finding are discussed.