Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04175274 = product of:
  0.08350548 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=2648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.06666744 = sum of:
      0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027983533 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038683902 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper proposes a diffusion model to measure the evolution of stakeholders' disaster perceptions by integrating a disaster message model, a stakeholder model, and a stakeholder memory model, which collectively describe the process of information flow. Simulation results show that the rate of forgetting has a significantly negative effect on stakeholders' perceptions and the incremental increase in the number of affected individuals has a positive effect on the maximum level of stakeholders' perceptions, but negative effect on the duration of stakeholders' perceptions. Additionally, a delay effect, a stagnation effect, and a cumulative effect exist in the evolution of stakeholders' perceptions. There is a spike at the beginning of the profile of stakeholders' perceptions in the Damped Exponential Model. An empirical test supports the validity of this model of stakeholders' disaster perceptions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:16:13

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.441-453

0.023116643 = product of:
  0.046233285 = sum of:
    0.022913676 = weight(_text_:information in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022913676 = score(doc=4118,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
    0.02331961 = product of:
      0.04663922 = sum of:
        0.04663922 = weight(_text_:technology in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04663922 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.11, S.2525-2528

0.012845755 = product of:
  0.02569151 = sum of:
    0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140317045 = score(doc=1849,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study compares the range of disciplines of citing journal articles to determine how closely related journals assigned to the same Web of Science research area are. The frequency distribution of disciplines by citing articles provides a signature for a cited journal that permits it to be compared with other journals using similarity comparison techniques. As an initial exploration, citing discipline data for 40 high-impact-factor journals assigned to the "information science and library science" category of the Web of Science were compared across 5 time periods. Similarity relationships were determined using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to compare the outcomes produced by the proposed citing discipline and established cocitation methods. The maps and clustering outcomes reveal that a number of journals in allied areas of the information science and library science category may not be very closely related to each other or may not be appropriately situated in the category studied. The citing discipline similarity data resulted in similar outcomes with the cocitation data but with some notable differences. Because the citing discipline method relies on a citing perspective different from cocitations, it may provide a complementary way to compare journal similarity that is less labor intensive than cocitation analysis.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1189-1198

0.012295332 = product of:
  0.024590664 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=5360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5360, 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=5360)
    0.016489455 = product of:
      0.03297891 = sum of:
        0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03297891 = score(doc=5360,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 5360, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It is increasingly important to build topic linkages between scientific publications and patents for the purpose of understanding the relationships between science and technology. Previous studies on the linkages mainly focus on the analysis of nonpatent references on the front page of patents, or the resulting citation-link networks, but with unsatisfactory performance. In the meanwhile, abundant mentioned entities in the scholarly articles and patents further complicate topic linkages. To deal with this situation, a novel statistical entity-topic model (named the CCorrLDA2 model), armed with the collapsed Gibbs sampling inference algorithm, is proposed to discover the hidden topics respectively from the academic articles and patents. In order to reduce the negative impact on topic similarity calculation, word tokens and entity mentions are grouped by the Brown clustering method. Then a topic linkages construction problem is transformed into the well-known optimal transportation problem after topic similarity is calculated on the basis of symmetrized Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence. Extensive experimental results indicate that our approach is feasible to build topic linkages with more superior performance than the counterparts.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.9, S.1026-1042

0.011856608 = product of:
  0.023713216 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.368-379

0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=5249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5249, 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=5249)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study investigates motivations for self-archiving research items on academic social networking sites (ASNSs). A model of these motivations was developed based on two existing motivation models: motivation for self-archiving in academia and motivations for information sharing in social media. The proposed model is composed of 18 factors drawn from personal, social, professional, and external contexts, including enjoyment, personal/professional gain, reputation, learning, self-efficacy, altruism, reciprocity, trust, community interest, social engagement, publicity, accessibility, self-archiving culture, influence of external actors, credibility, system stability, copyright concerns, additional time, and effort. Two hundred and twenty-six ResearchGate users participated in the survey. Accessibility was the most highly rated factor, followed by altruism, reciprocity, trust, self-efficacy, reputation, publicity, and others. Personal, social, and professional factors were also highly rated, while external factors were rated relatively low. Motivations were correlated with one another, demonstrating that RG motivations for self-archiving could increase or decrease based on several factors in combination with motivations from the personal, social, professional, and external contexts. We believe the findings from this study can increase our understanding of users' motivations in sharing their research and provide useful implications for the development and improvement of ASNS services, thereby attracting more active users.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.6, S.563-574

0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5016, 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=5016)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.4, S.385-401