Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Qin, J."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Qin, J.; Lancaster, F.W.; Allen, B.: Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences (1997) 0.05 
    0.046337895 = sum of:
  0.020986568 = product of:
    0.08394627 = sum of:
      0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08394627 = score(doc=1593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025351325 = product of:
    0.05070265 = sum of:
      0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070265 = score(doc=1593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports on a study which collected a sample of 846 scientific research papers published in 1992 and tests 3 hypotheses on the relationship between research collaboration and interdisciplinarity. Results showed significant differences in degrees of interdisciplinarity among different levels of collaboration and among different disciplines. Collaboration contributed significantly to the degree of interdisciplinarity in some disciplines and not in others. Uses a survey that asked authors about their form of collaboration, channels of communication and use of information. The survey provides some qualitative explanation for the bibliometrics findings. Discusses the perspective of scientist-scientist interaction, scientist-information interaction and information-information interaction
  2. Qin, J.: Semantic patterns in bibliographically coupled documents (2002) 0.01 
    0.007243236 = product of:
  0.014486472 = sum of:
    0.014486472 = product of:
      0.028972944 = sum of:
        0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028972944 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.

Authors

Years