Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.04
    0.03722297 = product of:
      0.07444594 = sum of:
        0.07444594 = sum of:
          0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.024727406 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = queryNorm
              0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
          0.049718536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.049718536 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = 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)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245
  2. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01
    0.010653973 = product of:
      0.021307945 = sum of:
        0.021307945 = product of:
          0.04261589 = sum of:
            0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04261589 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
  3. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012) 0.01
    0.0052987295 = product of:
      0.010597459 = sum of:
        0.010597459 = product of:
          0.021194918 = sum of:
            0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021194918 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
  4. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.01
    0.0052987295 = product of:
      0.010597459 = sum of:
        0.010597459 = product of:
          0.021194918 = sum of:
            0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021194918 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.352-371
  5. Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.; Liang, X.; Gao, G.; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career (2018) 0.00
    0.004415608 = product of:
      0.008831216 = sum of:
        0.008831216 = product of:
          0.017662432 = sum of:
            0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017662432 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.