Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lee, D.H."
  1. Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012) 0.00 
    0.0049571716 = product of:
  0.012392929 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=383,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757
    Type
    a
  2. Lee, D.H.; Brusilovsky, P.: ¬The first impression of conference papers : does it matter in predicting future citations? (2019) 0.00 
    0.004624805 = product of:
  0.011562012 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=4677,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4677, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4677)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 4677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=4677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4677, 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=4677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle-paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.83-95
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes