Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  1. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Discovering author impact : a PageRank perspective (2011) 0.01 
    0.009447227 = product of:
  0.02834168 = sum of:
    0.01980844 = weight(_text_:h in 2704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01980844 = score(doc=2704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 2704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2704)
    0.008533241 = weight(_text_:a in 2704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008533241 = score(doc=2704,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2704, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2704)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This article provides an alternative perspective for measuring author impact by applying PageRank algorithm to a coauthorship network. A weighted PageRank algorithm considering citation and coauthorship network topology is proposed. We test this algorithm under different damping factors by evaluating author impact in the informetrics research community. In addition, we also compare this weighted PageRank with the h-index, citation, and program committee (PC) membership of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conferences. Findings show that this weighted PageRank algorithm provides reliable results in measuring author impact.
    Type
    a
  2. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.01 
    0.008511819 = product of:
  0.025535457 = sum of:
    0.021010023 = weight(_text_:h in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021010023 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.0045254347 = weight(_text_:a in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045254347 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
    Type
    a
  3. Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.; Liang, X.; Gao, G.; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career (2018) 0.01 
    0.007823713 = product of:
  0.023471138 = sum of:
    0.017508354 = weight(_text_:h in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017508354 = score(doc=4012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
    0.005962784 = weight(_text_:a in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005962784 = score(doc=4012,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.
    Type
    a
  4. Ding, Y.: Topic-based PageRank on author cocitation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.0077742143 = product of:
  0.023322642 = sum of:
    0.014856329 = weight(_text_:h in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014856329 = score(doc=4348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
    0.008466314 = weight(_text_:a in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008466314 = score(doc=4348,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ranking authors is vital for identifying a researcher's impact and standing within a scientific field. There are many different ranking methods (e.g., citations, publications, h-index, PageRank, and weighted PageRank), but most of them are topic-independent. This paper proposes topic-dependent ranks based on the combination of a topic model and a weighted PageRank algorithm. The author-conference-topic (ACT) model was used to extract topic distribution of individual authors. Two ways for combining the ACT model with the PageRank algorithm are proposed: simple combination (I_PR) or using a topic distribution as a weighted vector for PageRank (PR_t). Information retrieval was chosen as the test field and representative authors for different topics at different time phases were identified. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze the ranking difference between I_PR and PR_t.
    Type
    a
  5. Ding, Y.: Scholarly communication and bibliometrics : Part 1: The scholarly communication model: literature review (1998) 0.01 
    0.0072930953 = product of:
  0.021879286 = sum of:
    0.0053332755 = weight(_text_:a in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053332755 = score(doc=3995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
    0.016546011 = product of:
      0.04963803 = sum of:
        0.04963803 = weight(_text_:29 in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04963803 = score(doc=3995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 23(1998) no.2, S.20-29
    Type
    a
  6. Zhai, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, H.: Innovation adoption : broadcasting versus virality (2021) 0.01 
    0.0067996113 = product of:
  0.020398833 = sum of:
    0.014856329 = weight(_text_:h in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014856329 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
    0.005542503 = weight(_text_:a in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005542503 = score(doc=162,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Diffusion channels are critical to determining the adoption scale, which leads to the ultimate impact of an innovation. The aim of this study is to develop an integrative understanding of the impact of two diffusion channels (i.e., broadcasting vs. virality) on innovation adoption. Using citations of a series of classic algorithms and the time series of co-authorship as the footprints of their diffusion trajectories, we propose a novel method to analyze the intertwining relationships between broadcasting and virality in the innovation diffusion process. Our findings show that broadcasting and virality have similar diffusion power, but play different roles across diffusion stages. Broadcasting is more powerful in the early stages but may be gradually caught up or even surpassed by virality in the later period. Meanwhile, diffusion speed in virality is significantly faster than broadcasting and members from virality channels tend to adopt the same innovation repetitively.
    Type
    a
  7. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.0063148676 = product of:
  0.018944602 = sum of:
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=4188,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.011478017 = product of:
      0.03443405 = sum of:
        0.03443405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443405 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
    Type
    a
  8. Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022) 0.01 
    0.0061143534 = product of:
  0.01834306 = sum of:
    0.012380276 = weight(_text_:h in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012380276 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.005962784 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005962784 = score(doc=663,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.
    Type
    a
  9. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.01 
    0.0056943162 = product of:
  0.017082948 = sum of:
    0.007155341 = weight(_text_:a in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007155341 = score(doc=1202,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.009927606 = product of:
      0.029782817 = sum of:
        0.029782817 = weight(_text_:29 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782817 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:40:41
    Type
    a
  10. Min, C.; Ding, Y.; Li, J.; Bu, Y.; Pei, L.; Sun, J.: Innovation or imitation : the diffusion of citations (2018) 0.01 
    0.005271799 = product of:
  0.015815396 = sum of:
    0.0075423913 = weight(_text_:a in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075423913 = score(doc=4445,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
    0.0082730055 = product of:
      0.024819015 = sum of:
        0.024819015 = weight(_text_:29 in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024819015 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Citations in scientific literature are important both for tracking the historical development of scientific ideas and for forecasting research trends. However, the diffusion mechanisms underlying the citation process remain poorly understood, despite the frequent and longstanding use of citation counts for assessment purposes within the scientific community. Here, we extend the study of citation dynamics to a more general diffusion process to understand how citation growth associates with different diffusion patterns. Using a classic diffusion model, we quantify and illustrate specific diffusion mechanisms which have been proven to exert a significant impact on the growth and decay of citation counts. Experiments reveal a positive relation between the "low p and low q" pattern and high scientific impact. A sharp citation peak produced by rapid change of citation counts, however, has a negative effect on future impact. In addition, we have suggested a simple indicator, saturation level, to roughly estimate an individual article's current stage in the life cycle and its potential to attract future attention. The proposed approach can also be extended to higher levels of aggregation (e.g., individual scientists, journals, institutions), providing further insights into the practice of scientific evaluation.
    Date
    29. 9.2018 13:24:10
    Type
    a
  11. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.0051269345 = product of:
  0.0153808035 = sum of:
    0.005542503 = weight(_text_:a in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005542503 = score(doc=1521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.0098383 = product of:
      0.0295149 = sum of:
        0.0295149 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0295149 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
    Type
    a
  12. Liu, M.; Bu, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, J.; Li, D.; Leng, Y.; Freeman, R.B.; Meyer, E.T.; Yoon, W.; Sung, M.; Jeong, M.; Lee, J.; Kang, J.; Min, C.; Zhai, Y.; Song, M.; Ding, Y.: Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty : evidence from COVID-19 (2022) 0.00 
    0.004745263 = product of:
  0.014235789 = sum of:
    0.005962784 = weight(_text_:a in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005962784 = score(doc=633,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
    0.0082730055 = product of:
      0.024819015 = sum of:
        0.024819015 = weight(_text_:29 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024819015 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.
    Type
    a
  13. Ding, Y.; Foo, S.: Ontology research and development : part 1 - a review of ontology generation (2002) 0.00 
    0.0017598914 = product of:
  0.010559348 = sum of:
    0.010559348 = weight(_text_:a in 3808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010559348 = score(doc=3808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3808)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Type
    a
  14. Ding, Y.: ¬A review of ontologies with the Semantic Web in view (2001) 0.00 
    0.0017598914 = product of:
  0.010559348 = sum of:
    0.010559348 = weight(_text_:a in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010559348 = score(doc=4152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Type
    a
  15. Ding, Y.; Foo, S.: Ontology research and development : part 2 - a review of ontology mapping and evolving (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015084783 = product of:
  0.009050869 = sum of:
    0.009050869 = weight(_text_:a in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009050869 = score(doc=3835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Type
    a
  16. Klein, M.; Ding, Y.; Fensel, D.; Omelayenko, B.: Ontology management : storing, aligning and maintaining ontologies (2004) 0.00 
    0.0013303527 = product of:
  0.007982116 = sum of:
    0.007982116 = weight(_text_:a in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007982116 = score(doc=4402,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.
    Support for evolving ontologies is required in almost all situations where ontologies are used in real-world applications. In those cases, ontologies are often developed by several persons and will continue to evolve over time, because of changes in the real world, adaptations to different tasks, or alignments to other ontologies. To prevent that such changes will invalidate existing usage, a change management methodology is needed. This involves advanced versioning methods for the development and the maintenance of ontologies, but also configuration management, that takes care of the identification, relations and interpretation of ontology versions. All these aspects come together in integrated ontology library systems. When the number of different ontologies is increasing, the task of storing, maintaining and re-organizing them to secure the successful re-use of ontologies is challenging. Ontology library systems can help in the grouping and reorganizing ontologies for further re-use, integration, maintenance, mapping and versioning. Basically, a library system offers various functions for managing, adapting and standardizing groups of ontologies. Such integrated systems are a requirement for the Semantic Web to grow further and scale up. In this chapter, we describe a number of results with respect to the above mentioned areas. We start with a description of the alignment task and show a meta-ontology that is developed to specify the mappings. Then, we discuss the problems that are caused by evolving ontologies and describe two important elements of a change management methodology. Finally, in Section 4.4 we survey existing library systems and formulate a wish-list of features of an ontology library system.
    Type
    a
  17. Zhai, Y; Ding, Y.; Wang, F.: Measuring the diffusion of an innovation : a citation analysis (2018) 0.00 
    0.0013063805 = product of:
  0.007838283 = sum of:
    0.007838283 = weight(_text_:a in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007838283 = score(doc=4116,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Innovations transform our research traditions and become the driving force to advance individual, group, and social creativity. Meanwhile, interdisciplinary research is increasingly being promoted as a route to advance the complex challenges we face as a society. In this paper, we use Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) citation as a proxy context for the diffusion of an innovation. With an analysis of topic evolution, we divide the diffusion process into five stages: testing and evaluation, implementation, improvement, extending, and fading. Through a correlation analysis of topic and subject, we show the application of LDA in different subjects. We also reveal the cross-boundary diffusion between different subjects based on the analysis of the interdisciplinary studies. The results show that as LDA is transferred into different areas, the adoption of each subject is relatively adjacent to those with similar research interests. Our findings further support researchers' understanding of the impact formation of innovation.
    Type
    a
  18. Li, D.; Wang, Y.; Madden, A.; Ding, Y.; Sun, G.G.; Zhang, N.; Zhou, E.: Analyzing stock market trends using social media user moods and social influence (2019) 0.00 
    0.0012570652 = product of:
  0.0075423913 = sum of:
    0.0075423913 = weight(_text_:a in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075423913 = score(doc=5362,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Information from microblogs is gaining increasing attention from researchers interested in analyzing fluctuations in stock markets. Behavioral financial theory draws on social psychology to explain some of the irrational behaviors associated with financial decisions to help explain some of the fluctuations. In this study we argue that social media users who demonstrate an interest in finance can offer insights into ways in which irrational behaviors may affect a stock market. To test this, we analyzed all the data collected over a 3-month period in 2011 from Tencent Weibo (one of the largest microblogging websites in China). We designed a social influence (SI)-based Tencent finance-related moods model to simulate investors' irrational behaviors, and designed a Tencent Moods-based Stock Trend Analysis (TM_STA) model to detect correlations between Tencent moods and the Hushen-300 index (one of the most important financial indexes in China). Experimental results show that the proposed method can help explain the data fluctuation. The findings support the existing behavioral financial theory, and can help to understand short-term rises and falls in a stock market. We use behavioral financial theory to further explain our findings, and to propose a trading model to verify the proposed model.
    Type
    a
  19. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009) 0.00 
    0.0012444311 = product of:
  0.0074665863 = sum of:
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=3083,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.
    Type
    a
  20. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.00 
    0.0011925569 = product of:
  0.007155341 = sum of:
    0.007155341 = weight(_text_:a in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007155341 = score(doc=105,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 45
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes