Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.08
    0.076250955 = product of:
      0.30500382 = sum of:
        0.21784876 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21784876 = score(doc=3421,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21038401 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            1.0354816 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
        0.043577533 = weight(_text_:web in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043577533 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
        0.043577533 = weight(_text_:web in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043577533 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
      0.25 = coord(3/12)
    
    Abstract
    Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.02
    0.018900909 = product of:
      0.075603634 = sum of:
        0.02935275 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02935275 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
        0.02935275 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02935275 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
        0.016898135 = product of:
          0.03379627 = sum of:
            0.03379627 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03379627 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035634913 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(3/12)
    
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  3. Lin, N.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; He, B.; Qin, Z.; Tang, J.; Li, J.; Dong, T.: ¬The dynamic features of Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube (2012) 0.01
    0.01278582 = product of:
      0.15342984 = sum of:
        0.15342984 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15342984 = score(doc=4970,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21038401 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.72928464 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011) 0.01
    0.009903854 = product of:
      0.11884624 = sum of:
        0.11884624 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11884624 = score(doc=4759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21038401 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.01
    0.0083865 = product of:
      0.050318997 = sum of:
        0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025159499 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
        0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025159499 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
    
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
  6. Lu, C.; Bu, Y.; Wang, J.; Ding, Y.; Torvik, V.; Schnaars, M.; Zhang, C.: Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity : a cross-level moderation model (2019) 0.00
    0.0029083265 = product of:
      0.034899916 = sum of:
        0.034899916 = weight(_text_:world in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034899916 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.
  7. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.00
    0.0012070097 = product of:
      0.014484116 = sum of:
        0.014484116 = product of:
          0.028968232 = sum of:
            0.028968232 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028968232 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035634913 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04