Search (306 results, page 1 of 16)

0.12703264 = product of:
  0.50813055 = sum of:
    0.25406528 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25406528 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33904418 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.25406528 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25406528 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33904418 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.04989979 = product of:
  0.19959916 = sum of:
    0.07081199 = weight(_text_:computer in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07081199 = score(doc=4765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
    0.12878717 = weight(_text_:network in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12878717 = score(doc=4765,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.72313786 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Co-authorship in publications within a discipline uncovers interesting properties of the analyzed field. We represent collaboration in academic papers of computer science in terms of differently grained networks, namely affiliation and collaboration networks. We also build those sub-networks that emerge from either conference or journal co-authorship only. We take advantage of the network science paraphernalia to take a picture of computer science collaboration including all papers published in the field since 1936. Furthermore, we observe how collaboration in computer science evolved over time since 1960. We investigate bibliometric properties such as size of the discipline, productivity of scholars, and collaboration level in papers, as well as global network properties such as reachability and average separation distance among scholars, distribution of the number of scholar collaborators, network resilience and dependence on star collaborators, network clustering, and network assortativity by number of collaborators.

0.036301516 = product of:
  0.14520606 = sum of:
    0.08867725 = weight(_text_:property in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08867725 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.3499955 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.05652882 = sum of:
      0.029437674 = weight(_text_:resources in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029437674 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039991006 = queryNorm
          0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027091147 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039991006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The representation of science as a citation density landscape and the study of scaling rules with the field-specific citation density as a main topological property was previously analyzed at the level of research groups. Here, the focus is on the individual researcher. In this new analysis, the size dependence of several main bibliometric indicators for a large set of individual researchers is explored. Similar results as those previously observed for research groups are described for individual researchers. The total number of citations received by scientists increases in a cumulatively advantageous way as a function of size (in terms of number of publications) for researchers in three areas: Natural Resources, Biology & Biomedicine, and Materials Science. This effect is stronger for researchers in low citation density fields. Differences found among thematic areas with different citation densities are discussed.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

0.035547473 = product of:
  0.14218989 = sum of:
    0.07435531 = weight(_text_:network in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07435531 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.067834586 = sum of:
      0.03532521 = weight(_text_:resources in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03532521 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039991006 = queryNorm
          0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.032509375 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032509375 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039991006 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.030666847 = product of:
  0.12266739 = sum of:
    0.1064127 = weight(_text_:property in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1064127 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.4199946 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
    0.016254688 = product of:
      0.032509375 = sum of:
        0.032509375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032509375 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A representation of science as a citation density landscape is proposed and scaling rules with the field-specific citation density as a main topological property are investigated. The focus is on the size-dependence of several main bibliometric indicators for a large set of research groups while distinguishing between top-performance and lower-performance groups. It is demonstrated that this representation of the science system is particularly effective to understand the role and the interdependencies of the different bibliometric indicators and related topological properties of the landscape.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:03:12

0.030217055 = product of:
  0.12086822 = sum of:
    0.10732265 = weight(_text_:network in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10732265 = score(doc=4189,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.6026149 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:04:21

0.029327713 = product of:
  0.11731085 = sum of:
    0.04720799 = weight(_text_:computer in 2154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04720799 = score(doc=2154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 2154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2154)
    0.07010286 = weight(_text_:network in 2154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010286 = score(doc=2154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.3936264 = fieldWeight in 2154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2154)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

We use a social network approach to examine how work and friendship ties in a university research group were associated with the kinds of media used for different kind of information exchange. The use of e-mail, unscheduled face-to-face encounters, and scheduled face-to-face meetings predominated for the exchange of 6 kinds of information: receiving work, giving work, collaborative writing, computer programming, sociability and major emotional support. Few pairs used synchronous desktop videoconferencing or the telephone

0.027879326 = product of:
  0.1115173 = sum of:
    0.09797173 = weight(_text_:network in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09797173 = score(doc=57,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.5501096 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.027440326 = product of:
  0.109761305 = sum of:
    0.035405993 = weight(_text_:computer in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035405993 = score(doc=524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
    0.07435531 = weight(_text_:network in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07435531 = score(doc=524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper introduces a keyword map of the labels used by the scientists registered in the Google Scholar Citations (GSC) database from December 2011. In all, 15,000 random queries were formulated to GSC to obtain a list of 26,682 registered users. From this list a network graph of 6,660 labels was built and classified according to the Scopus Subject Area classes. Results display a detailed label map of the most used (>15 times) tags. The structural analysis shows that the core of the network is occupied by computer science-related disciplines that account for the most used and shared labels. This core is surrounded by clusters of disciplines related or close to computing such as Information Sciences, Mathematics, or Bioinformatics. Classical areas such as Chemistry and Physics are marginalized in the graph. It is suggested that GSC would in the future be an accurate source to map Science because it is based on the labels that scientists themselves use to describe their own research activity.

0.027182227 = product of:
  0.10872891 = sum of:
    0.0910663 = weight(_text_:network in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0910663 = score(doc=1256,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
    0.017662605 = product of:
      0.03532521 = sum of:
        0.03532521 = weight(_text_:resources in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03532521 = score(doc=1256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Most measures of networks are based on the nodes, although links are also elementary units in networks and represent interesting social or physical connections. In this work we suggest an option for exploring networks, called the h-strength, with explicit focus on links and their strengths. The h-strength and its extensions can naturally simplify a complex network to a small and concise subnetwork (h-subnet) but retains the most important links with its core structure. Its applications in 2 typical information networks, the paper cocitation network of a topic (the h-index) and 5 scientific collaboration networks in the field of "water resources," suggest that h-strength and its extensions could be a useful choice for abstracting, simplifying, and visualizing a complex network. Moreover, we observe that the 2 informetric models, the Glänzel-Schubert model and the Hirsch model, roughly hold in the context of the h-strength for the collaboration networks.

0.025922282 = product of:
  0.10368913 = sum of:
    0.041726362 = weight(_text_:computer in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041726362 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.061962765 = weight(_text_:network in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061962765 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.025293538 = product of:
  0.10117415 = sum of:
    0.08762858 = weight(_text_:network in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08762858 = score(doc=2743,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.492033 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.025293538 = product of:
  0.10117415 = sum of:
    0.08762858 = weight(_text_:network in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08762858 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.492033 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.025280248 = product of:
  0.10112099 = sum of:
    0.081964664 = weight(_text_:europe in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081964664 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24358861 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.019156333 = product of:
      0.038312666 = sum of:
        0.038312666 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038312666 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.024170876 = product of:
  0.0966835 = sum of:
    0.081964664 = weight(_text_:europe in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081964664 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24358861 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
    0.014718837 = product of:
      0.029437674 = sum of:
        0.029437674 = weight(_text_:resources in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029437674 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.

0.0226525 = product of:
  0.09061 = sum of:
    0.07435531 = weight(_text_:network in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07435531 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.016254688 = product of:
      0.032509375 = sum of:
        0.032509375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032509375 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.022358537 = product of:
  0.08943415 = sum of:
    0.075888574 = weight(_text_:network in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075888574 = score(doc=4191,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

0.022358537 = product of:
  0.08943415 = sum of:
    0.075888574 = weight(_text_:network in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075888574 = score(doc=2649,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a powerful tool for extracting the backbones of a directed network and has been applied widely in bibliometric studies. In contrast to the no-decay assumption in the traditional approach, this study proposes a novel technique by assuming that the strength of knowledge decays when knowledge contained in one document is passed on to another document down the citation chain. We propose three decay models, arithmetic decay, geometric decay, and harmonic decay, along with their theoretical properties. In general, results of the proposed decay models depend largely on the local structure of a citation network as opposed to the global structure in the traditional approach. Thus, the significance of citation links and the associated documents that are overemphasized by the global structure in the traditional no-decay approach is treated more properly. For example, the traditional approach commonly assigns high value to documents that heavily reference others, such as review articles. Specifically in the geometric and harmonic decay models, only truly significant review articles will be included in the resulting main paths. We demonstrate this new approach and its properties through the DNA literature citation network.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:23:00

0.0219465 = product of:
  0.175572 = sum of:
    0.175572 = weight(_text_:property in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.175572 = score(doc=3596,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.69295573 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

We present a theoretical and empirical analysis of a number of bibliometric indicators of journal performance. We focus on three indicators in particular: the Eigenfactor indicator, the audience factor, and the influence weight indicator. Our main finding is that the last two indicators can be regarded as a kind of special case of the first indicator. We also find that the three indicators can be nicely characterized in terms of two properties. We refer to these properties as the property of insensitivity to field differences and the property of insensitivity to insignificant journals. The empirical results that we present illustrate our theoretical findings. We also show empirically that the differences between various indicators of journal performance are quite substantial.

0.021385163 = product of:
  0.08554065 = sum of:
    0.041726362 = weight(_text_:computer in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041726362 = score(doc=1459,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 1459, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1459)
    0.04381429 = weight(_text_:network in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04381429 = score(doc=1459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 1459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1459)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In their 1998 article "Visualizing a discipline: An author cocitation analysis of information science, 1972-1995," White and McCain used multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and factor analysis to display the specialty groupings of 120 highly-cited ("paradigmatic") information scientists. These statistical techniques are traditional in author cocitation analysis (ACA). It is shown here that a newer technique, Pathfinder Networks (PFNETs), has considerable advantages for ACA. In PFNETs, nodes represent authors, and explicit links represent weighted paths between nodes, the weights in this case being cocitation counts. The links can be drawn to exclude all but the single highest counts for author pairs, which reduces a network of authors to only the most salient relationships. When these are mapped, dominant authors can be defined as those with relatively many links to other authors (i.e., high degree centrality). Links between authors and dominant authors define specialties, and links between dominant authors connect specialties into a discipline. Maps are made with one rather than several computer routines and in one rather than many computer passes. Also, PFNETs can, and should, be generated from matrices of raw counts rather than Pearson correlations, which removes a computational step associated with traditional ACA. White and McCain's raw data from 1998 are remapped as a PFNET. It is shown that the specialty groupings correspond closely to those seen in the factor analysis of the 1998 article. Because PFNETs are fast to compute, they are used in AuthorLink, a new Web-based system that creates live interfaces for cocited author retrieval an the fly.