Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ridenour, L."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.04 
    0.042194232 = product of:
  0.084388465 = sum of:
    0.084388465 = sum of:
      0.04750981 = weight(_text_:l in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04750981 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045365814 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.03687865 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03687865 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15886335 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045365814 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  2. Ridenour, L.; Smiraglia, R.P.: How interdisciplinary is knowledge organization? : An epistemological view of knowledge organization as a domain (2016) 0.02 
    0.015836604 = product of:
  0.031673208 = sum of:
    0.031673208 = product of:
      0.063346416 = sum of:
        0.063346416 = weight(_text_:l in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063346416 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045365814 = queryNorm
            0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Ridenour, L.: Practical applications of citation analysis to examine interdisciplinary knowledge (2016) 0.02 
    0.015836604 = product of:
  0.031673208 = sum of:
    0.031673208 = product of:
      0.063346416 = sum of:
        0.063346416 = weight(_text_:l in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063346416 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045365814 = queryNorm
            0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)