Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00296799 = product of:
  0.00890397 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 1104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=1104,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1104, 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=1104)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this study, we propose a way to link the scholarly contents of scientific papers by constructing a knowledge graph based on the semantic organization of argumentation units and relations in scientific papers. We carried out an argumentation graph data model aimed at linking multiple discourses, and also developed a semantic annotation platform for scientific papers and an argumentation graph visualization system. A construction experiment was performed using 12 articles. The final argumentation graph has 1,262 nodes and 1,628 edges, including 1,628 intra-article relations and 190 inter-article relations. Knowledge evolution representation, strategic reading, and automatic abstracting use cases are presented to demonstrate the application of the argumentation graph. In contrast to existing knowledge graphs used in academic fields, the argumentation graph better supports the organization and representation of scientific paper content and can be used as data infrastructure in scientific knowledge retrieval, reorganization, reasoning, and evolution. Moreover, it supports automatic abstract and strategic reading.

Type

a

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=567,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scientific papers are essential manifestations of evolving scientific knowledge, and arguments are an important avenue to communicate research results. This study aims to understand how the argumentation process is represented in scientific papers, which is important for knowledge representation, discovery, and retrieval. First, based on fundamental argument theory and scientific discourse ontologies, a coding schema, including 17 categories was constructed. Thereafter, annotation experiments were conducted with 40 scientific articles randomly selected from two different research areas (library and information science and biomedical sciences). Statistical analysis and the sequential pattern mining method were then employed; the ratio of different argumentation units and evidence types were calculated, the argumentation semantics of figures and tables analyzed, and the argumentation structures extracted. A correlation analysis between argumentation and rhetorical structures was also performed to further reveal how argumentation was represented within scientific discourses. The results indicated a difference in the proportion of the argumentation units in the two types of scientific papers, as well as a similar linear construction with differences in the specific argument structures of each knowledge domain and a clear correlation between argumentation and rhetorical structure.

Type

a

0.0022989952 = product of:
  0.006896985 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=1072,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1072, 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=1072)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, that is, going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the knowledge exchange between disciplines, we recognize three aspects of IKF under this framework, namely broadness, intensity, and homogeneity. We show how to utilize them to uncover different forms of interdisciplinarity, especially between disciplines with the largest volume of IKF. We apply this framework in two use cases, one at the level of disciplines and one at the level of journals, to show how it can offer a more holistic and detailed viewpoint on the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities than aggregated and context-unaware indicators. We further compare our proposed framework, an indicating process, with established indicators and discuss how such information tools on interdisciplinarity can assist science policy practices such as performance-based research funding systems and panel-based peer review processes.

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=646,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research is widely recognized as necessary to tackle some of the grand challenges facing humanity. It is generally believed that interdisciplinarity is becoming increasingly prevalent among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. However, little is known about the evolution of interdisciplinarity in the Social Sciences. Also, how interdisciplinarity and its various aspects evolve over time has seldom been closely quantified and delineated. This paper answers these questions by capturing the disciplinary diversity of the knowledge base of scientific publications in nine broad Social Sciences fields over 55 years. The analysis considers diversity as a whole and its three distinct aspects, namely variety, balance, and disparity. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions are also conducted to investigate whether such change, if any, can be found among research with similar characteristics. We find that learning widely and digging deeply have become one of the norms among researchers in Social Sciences. Fields acting as knowledge exporters or independent domains maintain a relatively stable homogeneity in their knowledge base while the knowledge base of importer disciplines evolves towards greater heterogeneity. However, the increase of interdisciplinarity is substantially smaller when controlling for several author and publication related variables.

Type

a

0.001564268 = product of:
  0.004692804 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=1192,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on 'Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research'. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24833.

Type

a