-
Aris, A.; Shneiderman, B.; Qazvinian, V.; Radev, D.: Visual overviews for discovering key papers and influences across research fronts (2009)
0.00
0.0028703054 = product of:
0.005740611 = sum of:
0.005740611 = product of:
0.011481222 = sum of:
0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 3156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011481222 = score(doc=3156,freq=16.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3156, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3156)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Gaining a rapid overview of an emerging scientific topic, sometimes called research fronts, is an increasingly common task due to the growing amount of interdisciplinary collaboration. Visual overviews that show temporal patterns of paper publication and citation links among papers can help researchers and analysts to see the rate of growth of topics, identify key papers, and understand influences across subdisciplines. This article applies a novel network-visualization tool based on meaningful layouts of nodes to present research fronts and show citation links that indicate influences across research fronts. To demonstrate the value of two-dimensional layouts with multiple regions and user control of link visibility, we conducted a design-oriented, preliminary case study with 6 domain experts over a 4-month period. The main benefits were being able (a) to easily identify key papers and see the increasing number of papers within a research front, and (b) to quickly see the strength and direction of influence across related research fronts.
- Type
- a
-
Elkiss, A.; Shen, S.; Fader, A.; Erkan, G.; States, D.; Radev, D.: Blind men and elephants : what do citation summaries tell us about a research article? (2008)
0.00
0.0028047764 = product of:
0.005609553 = sum of:
0.005609553 = product of:
0.011219106 = sum of:
0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011219106 = score(doc=1339,freq=22.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims.
- Type
- a
-
McKeown, K.; Daume III, H.; Chaturvedi, S.; Paparrizos, J.; Thadani, K.; Barrio, P.; Biran, O.; Bothe, S.; Collins, M.; Fleischmann, K.R.; Gravano, L.; Jha, R.; King, B.; McInerney, K.; Moon, T.; Neelakantan, A.; O'Seaghdha, D.; Radev, D.; Templeton, C.; Teufel, S.: Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features (2016)
0.00
0.0025370158 = product of:
0.0050740317 = sum of:
0.0050740317 = product of:
0.010148063 = sum of:
0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010148063 = score(doc=3153,freq=18.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- New scientific concepts, interpreted broadly, are continuously introduced in the literature, but relatively few concepts have a long-term impact on society. The identification of such concepts is a challenging prediction task that would help multiple parties-including researchers and the general public-focus their attention within the vast scientific literature. In this paper we present a system that predicts the future impact of a scientific concept, represented as a technical term, based on the information available from recently published research articles. We analyze the usefulness of rich features derived from the full text of the articles through a variety of approaches, including rhetorical sentence analysis, information extraction, and time-series analysis. The results from two large-scale experiments with 3.8 million full-text articles and 48 million metadata records support the conclusion that full-text features are significantly more useful for prediction than metadata-only features and that the most accurate predictions result from combining the metadata and full-text features. Surprisingly, these results hold even when the metadata features are available for a much larger number of documents than are available for the full-text features.
- Type
- a
