-
Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011)
0.00
0.0043570166 = product of:
0.034856133 = sum of:
0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034856133 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Abstract
- The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.
-
Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018)
0.00
0.0043570166 = product of:
0.034856133 = sum of:
0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034856133 = score(doc=4257,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Abstract
- Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.
-
Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011)
0.00
0.0029530365 = product of:
0.023624292 = sum of:
0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023624292 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Abstract
- This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.00
0.0023727866 = product of:
0.018982293 = sum of:
0.018982293 = product of:
0.037964586 = sum of:
0.037964586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037964586 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
