Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Yu, Q."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Yan, E.; Yu, Q.: Using path-based approaches to examine the dynamic structure of discipline-level citation networks (2016) 0.01 
    0.01438993 = product of:
  0.04316979 = sum of:
    0.04316979 = weight(_text_:based in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04316979 = score(doc=3053,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The objective of this paper is to identify the dynamic structure of several time-dependent, discipline-level citation networks through a path-based method. A network data set is prepared that comprises 27 subjects and their citations aggregated from more than 27,000 journals and proceedings indexed in the Scopus database. A maximum spanning tree method is employed to extract paths in the weighted, directed, and cyclic networks. This paper finds that subjects such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Materials Science, Physics, and Social Sciences are the ones with multiple branches in the spanning tree. This paper also finds that most paths connect science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields; 2 critical paths connecting STEM and non-STEM fields are the one from Mathematics to Decision Sciences and the one from Medicine to Social Sciences.
  2. Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z.: Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords : a case study of patient adherence research (2016) 0.01 
    0.010175217 = product of:
  0.03052565 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric analysis based on literature in the Web of Science (WOS) has become an increasingly popular method for visualizing the structure of scientific fields. Keywords Plus and Author Keywords are commonly selected as units of analysis, despite the limited research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Keywords Plus. This study was conceived to evaluate the efficacy of Keywords Plus as a parameter for capturing the content and scientific concepts presented in articles. Using scientific papers about patient adherence that were retrieved from WOS, a comparative assessment of Keywords Plus and Author Keywords was performed at the scientific field level and the document level, respectively. Our search yielded more Keywords Plus terms than Author Keywords, and the Keywords Plus terms were more broadly descriptive. Keywords Plus is as effective as Author Keywords in terms of bibliometric analysis investigating the knowledge structure of scientific fields, but it is less comprehensive in representing an article's content.

Authors