Search (52 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=5390,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5390, 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=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using information theory, we measure innovation systemness as synergy among size-classes, ZIP Codes, and technological classes (NACE-codes) for 8.5 million American companies. The synergy at the national level is decomposed at the level of states, Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA), and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). We zoom in to the state of California and in more detail to Silicon Valley. Our results do not support the assumption of a national system of innovations in the U.S.A. Innovation systems appear to operate at the level of the states; the CBSA are too small, so that systemness spills across their borders. Decomposition of the sample in terms of high-tech manufacturing (HTM), medium-high-tech manufacturing (MHTM), knowledge-intensive services (KIS), and high-tech services (HTKIS) does not change this pattern, but refines it. The East Coast-New Jersey, Boston, and New York-and California are the major players, with Texas a third one in the case of HTKIS. Chicago and industrial centers in the Midwest also contribute synergy. Within California, Los Angeles contributes synergy in the sectors of manufacturing, the San Francisco area in KIS. KIS in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area-a CSA composed of seven CBSA-spill over to other regions and even globally.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=4466,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4919,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=1857,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We measure synergy for the Russian national, provincial, and regional innovation systems as reduction of uncertainty using mutual information among the 3 distributions of firm sizes, technological knowledge bases of firms, and geographical locations. Half a million units of data at firm level in 2011 were obtained from the OrbisT database of Bureau Van Dijk. The firm level data were aggregated at the levels of 8 Federal Districts, the regional level of 83 Federal Subjects, and the single level of the Russian Federation. Not surprisingly, the knowledge base of the economy is concentrated in the Moscow region (22.8%) and Saint Petersburg (4.0%). Except in Moscow itself, high-tech manufacturing does not add synergy to any other unit at any of the various levels of geographical granularity; instead it disturbs regional coordination. Knowledge-intensive services (KIS; including laboratories) contribute to the synergy in all Federal Districts (except the North-Caucasian Federal District), but only in 30 of the 83 Federal Subjects. The synergy in KIS is concentrated in centers of administration. The knowledge-intensive services (which are often state affiliated) provide backbone to an emerging knowledge-based economy at the level of Federal Districts, but the economy is otherwise not knowledge based (except for the Moscow region).

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3580,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3704,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using Google Earth, Google Maps, and/or network visualization programs such as Pajek, one can overlay the network of relations among addresses in scientific publications onto the geographic map. The authors discuss the pros and cons of various options, and provide software (freeware) for bridging existing gaps between the Science Citation Indices (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), on the one hand, and these various visualization tools on the other. At the level of city names, the global map can be drawn reliably on the basis of the available address information. At the level of the names of organizations and institutes, there are problems of unification both in the ISI databases and with Scopus. Pajek enables a combination of visualization and statistical analysis, whereas the Google Maps and its derivatives provide superior tools on the Internet.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We prove that Ochiai similarity of the co-occurrence matrix is equal to cosine similarity in the underlying occurrence matrix. Neither the cosine nor the Pearson correlation should be used for the normalization of co-occurrence matrices because the similarity is then normalized twice, and therefore overestimated; the Ochiai coefficient can be used instead. Results are shown using a small matrix (5 cases, 4 variables) for didactic reasons, and also Ahlgren et?al.'s (2003) co-occurrence matrix of 24 authors in library and information sciences. The overestimation is shown numerically and will be illustrated using multidimensional scaling and cluster dendograms. If the occurrence matrix is not available (such as in internet research or author cocitation analysis) using Ochiai for the normalization is preferable to using the cosine.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=1131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a