Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019540602 = product of:
  0.039081205 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1392, 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=1392)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=1392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1392, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Using the library and information science journals 2003-2012 in Nanjing University's Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index as data sources, the paper reveals the citation structure implied in these journals by applying social network analysis. Results show that, first, journal knowledge transfer activity in library and information science is frequent, and both the level of knowledge and discipline integration as well as the knowledge gap influenced knowledge transfer activity. According to the out-degree and in-degree, journals can be divided into three kinds. Second, based on professional bias and citation frequency, the knowledge transfer network can be divided into four blocks. With the change of discipline capacity and knowledge gap among journals, the "core-periphery" structure of the knowledge transfer network is getting weaker. Finally, regions of the knowledge transfer network evolved from a "weak-weak" subgroup to a "strong-weak" subgroup or a "weak-strong" subgroup, and then move to a "strong-strong" subgroup.

Source

Knowledge organization. 41(2014) no.4, S.276-287

0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=3843,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3843, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3843)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=3843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 3843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper presents a scientometrics analysis of research work done on the emerging area of think tanks, which are regarded as a domain of information science. Research on think tanks started during the last century and in recent years has gained tremendous momentum. It is considered one of the most important emerging domains of research in information science. We have analyzed the research output data on think tanks during 2006-2016 indexed in the Web of KnowledgeT and Scopus®. Our study objectively explores the document co-citation clusters of 1,450 bibliographic records to identify the origin of think tanks and hot research specialties of the domain. CiteSpace was used to visualize the perspective of the think tanks domain. Pivotal articles, prominent authors, active disciplines and institutions have been identified by network analysis. This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detect and visualize emerging trends and transient patterns in think tanks.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.5, S.335-348

0.0076650837 = product of:
  0.030660335 = sum of:
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=3846,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the development of Chinese education, more and more Chinese scholars pay attention to inter-departmental, inter-regional and even international collaboration, and publish more high quality articles. Exploring the collaborative situation of Chinese scholars in international articles will help Chinese scholars to understand the international collaborative situation. This paper selected international articles published by Chinese scholars in knowledge organization from WOST as research object, then from three aspects, seven angles, analyzed the collaborative situation of Chinese scholars. And it finds that both the accumulative number of articles and the accumulative number of co-published articles show exponential growth trend, and the collaborative rate of Chinese scholars rises from 50% in 1992 to 92.53% in 2016. Besides, the collaborative size is 2-5 authors. More importantly, higher collaborative size appears with time. Those further indicate the importance of scientific collaboration. Chinese scholars co-publish articles with more and more nations or regions, however 20% top nations or regions have more than 78% co-published research articles with Chinese scholars. It not only reflects that the capacity of Chinese scholars' academic collaboration and academic exchange is growing over the years, but also reflects that the collaborative nations or regions with Chinese scholar are concentrated.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.5, S.326-334