Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhang, C."
  1. Li, L.; He, D.; Zhang, C.; Geng, L.; Zhang, K.: Characterizing peer-judged answer quality on academic Q&A sites : a cross-disciplinary case study on ResearchGate (2018) 0.02 
    0.01810877 = product of:
  0.05432631 = sum of:
    0.05432631 = sum of:
      0.01958612 = weight(_text_:library in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01958612 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = queryNorm
          0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
      0.03474019 = weight(_text_:22 in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03474019 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined. Findings The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines. Originality/value The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022) 0.00 
    0.0032643534 = product of:
  0.00979306 = sum of:
    0.00979306 = product of:
      0.01958612 = sum of:
        0.01958612 = weight(_text_:library in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01958612 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Authors

Years