Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029973798 = product of:
  0.059947595 = sum of:
    0.059947595 = product of:
      0.11989519 = sum of:
        0.11989519 = weight(_text_:22 in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11989519 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:13:11

0.029973798 = product of:
  0.059947595 = sum of:
    0.059947595 = product of:
      0.11989519 = sum of:
        0.11989519 = weight(_text_:22 in 1359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11989519 = score(doc=1359,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 1359, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:20:07

0.010080709 = product of:
  0.020161418 = sum of:
    0.020161418 = product of:
      0.040322836 = sum of:
        0.040322836 = weight(_text_:data in 1469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040322836 = score(doc=1469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge domain visualization is a visual exploratory approach to the study of the development of a knowledge domain. In this study, we focus an the practical issues concerning modeling and visualizing scientific revolutions. We study the growth patterns of specialties derived from citation and cocitation data an string theory in physics. Special attention is given to the two superstring revolutions since the 1980s. The superstring revolutions are visualized, animated, and analyzed using the general framework of Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions. The implications of taking this approach are discussed.

0.0088311145 = product of:
  0.017662229 = sum of:
    0.017662229 = product of:
      0.035324458 = sum of:
        0.035324458 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035324458 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.0088311145 = product of:
  0.017662229 = sum of:
    0.017662229 = product of:
      0.035324458 = sum of:
        0.035324458 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035324458 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:50:00

0.007128138 = product of:
  0.014256276 = sum of:
    0.014256276 = product of:
      0.028512552 = sum of:
        0.028512552 = weight(_text_:data in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028512552 = score(doc=4286,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.17292464 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.005760405 = product of:
  0.01152081 = sum of:
    0.01152081 = product of:
      0.02304162 = sum of:
        0.02304162 = weight(_text_:data in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02304162 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.