Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012998712 = product of:
  0.060660657 = sum of:
    0.01037821 = weight(_text_:information in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01037821 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.03081471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03081471 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.092201896 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.019467738 = product of:
      0.058403213 = sum of:
        0.058403213 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058403213 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10673865 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030480823 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:17:40

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0038992898 = product of:
  0.027295027 = sum of:
    0.0088062035 = weight(_text_:information in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088062035 = score(doc=4214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.018488824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018488824 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.092201896 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.600-609

0.0027010548 = product of:
  0.018907383 = sum of:
    0.008122235 = weight(_text_:information in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008122235 = score(doc=4286,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
    0.010785148 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010785148 = score(doc=4286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.092201896 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.179-258

0.002069484 = product of:
  0.014486387 = sum of:
    0.006226926 = weight(_text_:information in 2736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006226926 = score(doc=2736,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2736, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2736)
    0.008259461 = product of:
      0.024778383 = sum of:
        0.024778383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024778383 = score(doc=2736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10673865 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030480823 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2736, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2736)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:49:33

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.455-476

8.895609E-4 = product of:
  0.012453852 = sum of:
    0.012453852 = weight(_text_:information in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012453852 = score(doc=1036,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1759-17676

8.2879944E-4 = product of:
  0.0116031915 = sum of:
    0.0116031915 = weight(_text_:information in 4956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0116031915 = score(doc=4956,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4956, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4956)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We describe two general approaches to creating document-level maps of science. To create a local map, one defines and directly maps a sample of data, such as all literature published in a set of information science journals. To create a global map of a research field, one maps "all of science" and then locates a literature sample within that full context. We provide a deductive argument that global mapping should create more accurate partitions of a research field than does local mapping, followed by practical reasons why this may not be so. The field of information science is then mapped at the document level using both local and global methods to provide a case illustration of the differences between the methods. Textual coherence is used to assess the accuracies of both maps. We find that document clusters in the global map have significantly higher coherence than do those in the local map, and that the global map provides unique insights into the field of information science that cannot be discerned from the local map. Specifically, we show that information science and computer science have a large interface and that computer science is the more progressive discipline at that interface. We also show that research communities in temporally linked threads have a much higher coherence than do isolated communities, and that this feature can be used to predict which threads will persist into a subsequent year. Methods that could increase the accuracy of both local and global maps in the future also are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.1-18

5.930406E-4 = product of:
  0.008302568 = sum of:
    0.008302568 = weight(_text_:information in 5244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008302568 = score(doc=5244,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5244, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5244)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Boyack, Wylie, and Davidson developed VxInsight which transforms information from documents into a landscape representation which conveys information on the implicit structure of the data as context for queries and exploration. From a list of pre-computed similarities it creates on a plane an x,y location for each item, or can compute its own similarities based on direct and co-citation linkages. Three-dimensional overlays are then generated on the plane to show the extent of clustering at particular points. Metadata associated with clustered objects provides a label for each peak from common words. Clicking on an object will provide citation information and answer sets for queries run will be displayed as markers on the landscape. A time slider allows a view of terrain changes over time. In a test on the microsystems engineering literature a review article was used to provide seed terms to search Science Citation Index and retrieve 20,923 articles of which 13,433 were connected by citation to at least one other article in the set. The citation list was used to calculate similarity measures and x.y coordinates for each article. Four main categories made up the landscape with 90% of the articles directly related to one or more of the four. A second test used five databases: SCI, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Engineering Index, INSPEC, and Medline to extract 17,927 unique articles by Sandia, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with text of abstracts and RetrievalWare 6.6 utilized to generate the similarity measures. The subsequent map revealed that despite some overlap the laboratories generally publish in different areas. A third test on 3000 physical science journals utilized 4.7 million articles from SCI where similarity was the un-normalized sum of cites between journals in both directions. Physics occupies a central position, with engineering, mathematics, computing, and materials science strongly linked. Chemistry is farther removed but strongly connected.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.764-774

4.4478045E-4 = product of:
  0.006226926 = sum of:
    0.006226926 = weight(_text_:information in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006226926 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.670-685

3.7065038E-4 = product of:
  0.005189105 = sum of:
    0.005189105 = weight(_text_:information in 5252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005189105 = score(doc=5252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5252)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.251-263

3.7065038E-4 = product of:
  0.005189105 = sum of:
    0.005189105 = weight(_text_:information in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005189105 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2389-2404

3.7065038E-4 = product of:
  0.005189105 = sum of:
    0.005189105 = weight(_text_:information in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005189105 = score(doc=3535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.984-998