Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Yan, E."
  • × author_ss:"Zhu, Y."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zhu, Y.; Yan, E.; Song, I.-Y..: ¬The use of a graph-based system to improve bibliographic information retrieval : system design, implementation, and evaluation (2017) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=3356,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3356, 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=3356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we propose a graph-based interactive bibliographic information retrieval system-GIBIR. GIBIR provides an effective way to retrieve bibliographic information. The system represents bibliographic information as networks and provides a form-based query interface. Users can develop their queries interactively by referencing the system-generated graph queries. Complex queries such as "papers on information retrieval, which were cited by John's papers that had been presented in SIGIR" can be effectively answered by the system. We evaluate the proposed system by developing another relational database-based bibliographic information retrieval system with the same interface and functions. Experiment results show that the proposed system executes the same queries much faster than the relational database-based system, and on average, our system reduced the execution time by 72% (for 3-node query), 89% (for 4-node query), and 99% (for 5-node query).
    Type
    a
  2. Yan, E.; Zhu, Y.: Adding the dimension of knowledge trading to source impact assessment : approaches, indicators, and implications (2017) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3633,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3633, 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=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The objective of this paper is to systematically assess sources' (e.g., journals and proceedings) impact in knowledge trading. While there have been efforts at evaluating different aspects of journal impact, the dimension of knowledge trading is largely absent. To fill the gap, this study employed a set of trading-based indicators, including weighted degree centrality, Shannon entropy, and weighted betweenness centrality, to assess sources' trading impact. These indicators were applied to several time-sliced source-to-source citation networks that comprise 33,634 sources indexed in the Scopus database. The results show that several interdisciplinary sources, such as Nature, PLoS One, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Science, and several specialty sources, such as Lancet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and New England Journal of Medicine, have demonstrated their marked importance in knowledge trading. Furthermore, this study also reveals that, overall, sources have established more trading partners, increased their trading volumes, broadened their trading areas, and diversified their trading contents over the past 15 years from 1997 to 2011. These results inform the understanding of source-level impact assessment and knowledge diffusion.
    Type
    a