Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01

0.013115749 = product of:
  0.026231498 = sum of:
    0.026231498 = product of:
      0.052462995 = sum of:
        0.052462995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052462995 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Wallace, M.L.; Gingras, Y.; Duhon, R.: ¬A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks (2009) 0.01
```
0.00636322 = product of:
  0.01272644 = sum of:
    0.01272644 = product of:
      0.02545288 = sum of:
        0.02545288 = weight(_text_:j in 2709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02545288 = score(doc=2709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2709, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

We use a technique recently developed by V. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre (2008) to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most previous methods used to obtain cocitation clusters since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network, and can be applied to relatively large networks. Most importantly, it requires no subjective interpretation of the cocitation data or of the communities found. Using two examples, we show that the resulting specialties are the smallest coherent groups of researchers (within a hierarchy of cluster sizes) and can thus be identified unambiguously. Furthermore, we confirm that these communities are indeed representative of what we know about the structure of a given scientific discipline and that as specialties, they can be accurately characterized by a few keywords (from the publication titles). We argue that this robust and efficient algorithm is particularly well-suited to cocitation networks and that the results generated can be of great use to researchers studying various facets of the structure and evolution of science.

Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors