Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Liu, X."
  • × author_ss:"Zhang, X."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Zhang, X.; Fang, Y.; He, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.: Epistemic motivation, task reflexivity, and knowledge contribution behavior on team wikis : a cross-level moderation model (2019) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5245,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A cross-level model based on the information processing perspective and trait activation theory was developed and tested in order to investigate the effects of individual-level epistemic motivation and team-level task reflexivity on three different individual contribution behaviors (i.e., adding, deleting, and revising) in the process of knowledge creation on team wikis. Using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling software package and the 2-wave data from 166 individuals in 51 wiki-based teams, we found cross-level interaction effects between individual epistemic motivation and team task reflexivity on different knowledge contribution behaviors on wikis. Epistemic motivation exerted a positive effect on adding, which was strengthened by team task reflexivity. The effect of epistemic motivation on deleting was positive only when task reflexivity was high. In addition, epistemic motivation was strongly positively related to revising, regardless of the level of task reflexivity involved.
    Type
    a
  2. Cui, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.: Multidimensional scholarly citations : characterizing and understanding scholars' citation behaviors (2023) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=847,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 847, 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=847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes