Search (848 results, page 1 of 43)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015) 0.11 
    0.114007905 = product of:
  0.22801581 = sum of:
    0.22801581 = sum of:
      0.18632205 = weight(_text_:networks in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18632205 = score(doc=2586,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.7680432 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed. Findings - Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks. Originality/value - This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.10 
    0.10117529 = product of:
  0.20235059 = sum of:
    0.20235059 = sum of:
      0.15370786 = weight(_text_:networks in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15370786 = score(doc=4188,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.6336034 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.048642725 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048642725 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  3. Marx, E. et al.: Exploring term networks for semantic search over RDF knowledge graphs (2016) 0.10 
    0.09813285 = product of:
  0.1962657 = sum of:
    0.1962657 = sum of:
      0.1267761 = weight(_text_:networks in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1267761 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.52258724 = fieldWeight in 3279, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3279)
      0.069489606 = weight(_text_:22 in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.069489606 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3279, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3279)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  4. Fóris, A.: Network theory and terminology (2013) 0.10 
    0.095006585 = product of:
  0.19001317 = sum of:
    0.19001317 = sum of:
      0.15526837 = weight(_text_:networks in 1365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15526837 = score(doc=1365,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.640036 = fieldWeight in 1365, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1365)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 1365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=1365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1365, 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=1365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper aims to present the relations of network theory and terminology. The model of scale-free networks, which has been recently developed and widely applied since, can be effectively used in terminology research as well. Operation based on the principle of networks is a universal characteristic of complex systems. Networks are governed by general laws. The model of scale-free networks can be viewed as a statistical-probability model, and it can be described with mathematical tools. Its main feature is that "everything is connected to everything else," that is, every node is reachable (in a few steps) starting from any other node; this phenomena is called "the small world phenomenon." The existence of a linguistic network and the general laws of the operation of networks enable us to place issues of language use in the complex system of relations that reveal the deeper connection s between phenomena with the help of networks embedded in each other. The realization of the metaphor that language also has a network structure is the basis of the classification methods of the terminological system, and likewise of the ways of creating terminology databases, which serve the purpose of providing easy and versatile accessibility to specialised knowledge.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 21:22:48
  5. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012) 0.09 
    0.093161024 = product of:
  0.18632205 = sum of:
    0.18632205 = product of:
      0.3726441 = sum of:
        0.3726441 = weight(_text_:networks in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3726441 = score(doc=274,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            1.5360864 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
  6. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.08 
    0.08146063 = product of:
  0.16292126 = sum of:
    0.16292126 = product of:
      0.48876378 = sum of:
        0.48876378 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48876378 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43482926 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  7. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.07 
    0.067883864 = product of:
  0.13576773 = sum of:
    0.13576773 = product of:
      0.40730315 = sum of:
        0.40730315 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40730315 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43482926 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  8. Zitt, M.; Lelu, A.; Bassecoulard, E.: Hybrid citation-word representations in science mapping : Portolan charts of research fields? (2011) 0.06 
    0.062194526 = product of:
  0.12438905 = sum of:
    0.12438905 = sum of:
      0.089644246 = weight(_text_:networks in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089644246 = score(doc=4130,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.369525 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4130, 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=4130)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The mapping of scientific fields, based on principles established in the seventies, has recently shown a remarkable development and applications are now booming with progress in computing efficiency. We examine here the convergence of two thematic mapping approaches, citation-based and word-based, which rely on quite different sociological backgrounds. A corpus in the nanoscience field was broken down into research themes, using the same clustering technique on the 2 networks separately. The tool for comparison is the table of intersections of the M clusters (here M=50) built on either side. A classical visual exploitation of such contingency tables is based on correspondence analysis. We investigate a rearrangement of the intersection table (block modeling), resulting in pseudo-map. The interest of this representation for confronting the two breakdowns is discussed. The amount of convergence found is, in our view, a strong argument in favor of the reliability of bibliometric mapping. However, the outcomes are not convergent at the degree where they can be substituted for each other. Differences highlight the complementarity between approaches based on different networks. In contrast with the strong informetric posture found in recent literature, where lexical and citation markers are considered as miscible tokens, the framework proposed here does not mix the two elements at an early stage, in compliance with their contrasted logic.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 18:22:50
  9. Assis, J.; Aparecida Moura, M.: Consensus analysis on the development of meta-languages: : a study of the semantic domain of biotechnology (2014) 0.06 
    0.062194526 = product of:
  0.12438905 = sum of:
    0.12438905 = sum of:
      0.089644246 = weight(_text_:networks in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089644246 = score(doc=1446,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1446, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1446)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=1446,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1446, 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=1446)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge representation and organization and their respective tools and methodologies are based on a model of production and diffusion of knowledge that is currently promoted by diversifying ways of creating, sharing and appropriating knowledge. This study investigated the dimensions of formation and expression of consensus within Biotechnology in order to analyze the possibilities and limits of Consensus Analysis as a methodological tool applied to the knowledge organization. The research explored co-authorship networks and semantic networks derived from the scientific production of the domain. The methodology was established by triangulating method and through theories of Social Network Analysis, Consensus Analysis and the semiotic approach. The freelisting technique was employed for the collection and analysis of concepts belonging to the domain. There is a relationship between the centrality of social actors and thematic centrality. The dynamics of the formation and expression of consensus in the digital context can reveal the configuration of a type of warranty that has not been explored in the literature of knowledge organization yet.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  10. Goggins, S.P.; Mascaro, C.; Valetto, G.: Group informatics : a methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research (2013) 0.06 
    0.05887971 = product of:
  0.11775942 = sum of:
    0.11775942 = sum of:
      0.07606566 = weight(_text_:networks in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07606566 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 665, 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=665)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We present a methodological approach, called Group Informatics, for understanding the social connections that are created between members of technologically mediated groups. Our methodological approach supports focused thinking about how online groups differ from each other, and diverge from their face-to-face counterparts. Group Informatics is grounded in 5 years of empirical studies of technologically mediated groups in online learning, software engineering, online political discourse, crisis informatics, and other domains. We describe the Group Informatics model and the related, 2-phase methodological approach in detail. Phase one of the methodological approach centers on a set of guiding research questions aimed at directing the application of Group Informatics to new corpora of integrated electronic trace data and qualitative research data. Phase 2 of the methodological approach is a systematic set of steps for transforming electronic trace data into weighted social networks.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:36:45
  11. Huang, M.; Barbour, J.; Su, C.; Contractor, N.: Why do group members provide information to digital knowledge repositories? : a multilevel application of transactive memory theory (2013) 0.06 
    0.05887971 = product of:
  0.11775942 = sum of:
    0.11775942 = sum of:
      0.07606566 = weight(_text_:networks in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07606566 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 666, 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=666)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The proliferation of digital knowledge repositories (DKRs) used for distributed and collocated work raises important questions about how to manage these technologies. This study investigates why individuals contribute information to DKRs by applying and extending transactive memory theory. Data from knowledge workers (N = 208) nested in work groups (J = 17) located in Europe and the United States revealed, consistent with transactive memory theory, that perceptions of experts' retrieval of information were positively related to the likelihood of information provision to DKRs. The relationship between experts' perceptions of retrieval and information provision varied from group to group, and cross-level interactions indicated that trust in how the information would be used and the interdependence of tasks within groups could explain that variation. Furthermore, information provision to DKRs was related to communication networks in ways consistent with theorizing regarding the formation of transactive memory systems. Implications for theory and practice are discussed, emphasizing the utility of multilevel approaches for conceptualizing and modeling why individuals provide information to DKRs.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:39:00
  12. Hetmanski, M.: ¬The actual role of metaphors in knowledge organization (2014) 0.06 
    0.05887971 = product of:
  0.11775942 = sum of:
    0.11775942 = sum of:
      0.07606566 = weight(_text_:networks in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07606566 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 1406, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1406)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1406, 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=1406)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the paper I argue that metaphors widely used in presenting knowledge organization, despite of their methodological correctness, play an ambiguous role. They are mostly conceived and used as models of information/knowledge organization such as library documents, databases and internet tools and devices. But due to their suggestive power and pervasive role, they can also obscure the structure of such organization. One can expect explanatory (descriptive) benefits from spatial (e.g. terrestrial or aquatic) metaphors comparing modes of organizing and accessing knowledge to oceans, pathways networks or even rhizomes. But mapping or metaphorically presenting cognitive undertakings such as searching, browsing or retrieving information/knowledge can obscure their actual essence. As held by the cognitive theory of metaphor (Lakoff, Johnson, Ritchie), certain aspects of complex phenomena (i.e. knowledge organization) are repeatedly obscured and hidden. I argue that metaphors containing probability concepts, although not immediately intuitive or comprehensible, are more fruitful effective in mapping knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  13. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.06 
    0.05887971 = product of:
  0.11775942 = sum of:
    0.11775942 = sum of:
      0.07606566 = weight(_text_:networks in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07606566 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  14. De Luca, E.W.; Dahlberg, I.: Including knowledge domains from the ICC into the multilingual lexical linked data cloud (2014) 0.06 
    0.05626231 = product of:
  0.11252462 = sum of:
    0.11252462 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=1493,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.04913657 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04913657 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, 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=1493)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:01:18
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  15. Bourouni , A.; Noori, S.; Jafari, M.: Knowledge network creation methodology selection in project-based organizations : an empirical framework (2015) 0.06 
    0.05626231 = product of:
  0.11252462 = sum of:
    0.11252462 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 1629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=1629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1629, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1629)
      0.04913657 = weight(_text_:22 in 1629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04913657 = score(doc=1629,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1629, 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=1629)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - In today's knowledge-based economy, knowledge networks (KN) increasingly are becoming vital channels for pursuing strategic objectives in project-based organizations (PBO), in which the project is the basic organizational element in its operation. KN initiatives often are started with the selection of a creation methodology, which involves complex decisions for successful implementation. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to address this critical selection of methodology and proposes a holistic framework for selecting an appropriate methodology in this kind of flatter, speedier, and more flexible organizational form. Design/methodology/approach - In the first step, the study established a theoretical background addressing the problem of KN creation in PBO. The second step defined selection criteria based on extensive literature review. In the third step, a holistic framework was constructed based on different characteristics of existing methodologies categorized according to the selected criteria. Finally, the suggested framework was empirically tested in a project-based firm and the case study and the results are discussed. Findings - A holistic framework was determined by including different aspects of a KN such as network perspectives, tools and techniques, objectives, characteristics, capabilities, and approaches. The proposed framework consisted of ten existing KN methodologies that consider qualitative and quantitative dimensions with micro and macro approaches. Originality/value - The development of the theory of KN creation methodology is the main contribution of this research. The selection framework, which was theoretically and empirically grounded, has attempted to offer a more rational and less ambiguous solution to the KN methodology selection problem in PBO forms.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 16:27:22
  16. Zhao, S.X.; Zhang, P.L.; Li, J.; Tan, A.M.; Ye, F.Y.: Abstracting the core subnet of weighted networks based on link strengths (2014) 0.05 
    0.050312713 = product of:
  0.100625426 = sum of:
    0.100625426 = product of:
      0.20125085 = sum of:
        0.20125085 = weight(_text_:networks in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20125085 = score(doc=1256,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.8295816 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  17. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.05 
    0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = 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)
    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
  18. Soulier, L.; Jabeur, L.B.; Tamine, L.; Bahsoun, W.: On ranking relevant entities in heterogeneous networks using a language-based model (2013) 0.05 
    0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:34:49
  19. Sosinska-Kalata, B.: Semantization and standardization : cooperative or conflicting trends in knowledge organization? (2014) 0.05 
    0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 1475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=1475,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1475, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1475)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 1475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=1475,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1475, 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=1475)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There are two most important trends observed in research on knowledge organization (KO) and in the development of knowledge organization systems (KOS) used in practice, i.e. semantization and standardization. These two trends determine current approaches to the development of methods and tools for organizing access to the digitally recorded knowledge in information systems and networks. Fundamental for the semantization of knowledge records is the creation and use of KOS with strong semantics which enable accurate representation of meanings in specified contexts. Standardization requires the unification of methods and tools for representing knowledge recorded in information resources. In practice it is often achieved by the use of universal KOS and implies generalization and homogenization of content representation that makes difficult to identify different interpretation of the phenomena and problems discussed in particular epistemological and cultural contexts. It is argued that the standardization of methods and tools for the representation of knowledge resources accessible in digital environment should not and does not have to imply this kind of generalization and simplification of the representation of their semantic content.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  20. Nguyen, T.T.; Tho Thanh Quan, T.T.; Tuoi Thi Phan, T.T.: Sentiment search : an emerging trend on social media monitoring systems (2014) 0.05 
    0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1625, 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=1625)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss sentiment search, which not only retrieves data related to submitted keywords but also identifies sentiment opinion implied in the retrieved data and the subject targeted by this opinion. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose a retrieval framework known as Cross-Domain Sentiment Search (CSS), which combines the usage of domain ontologies with specific linguistic rules to handle sentiment terms in textual data. The CSS framework also supports incrementally enriching domain ontologies when applied in new domains. Findings - The authors found that domain ontologies are extremely helpful when CSS is applied in specific domains. In the meantime, the embedded linguistic rules make CSS achieve better performance as compared to data mining techniques. Research limitations/implications - The approach has been initially applied in a real social monitoring system of a professional IT company. Thus, it is proved to be able to handle real data acquired from social media channels such as electronic newspapers or social networks. Originality/value - The authors have placed aspect-based sentiment analysis in the context of semantic search and introduced the CSS framework for the whole sentiment search process. The formal definitions of Sentiment Ontology and aspect-based sentiment analysis are also presented. This distinguishes the work from other related works.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 652
  • d 184
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • hu 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 733
  • el 70
  • m 67
  • s 29
  • x 14
  • r 7
  • b 5
  • i 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications