Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032828957 = product of:
  0.06565791 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.028653976 = product of:
  0.1146159 = sum of:
    0.1146159 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1146159 = score(doc=1192,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5852004 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How the knowledge base of disciplines grows, renews, and decays informs their distinct characteristics and epistemology. Here we track the evolution of knowledge bases of 19 disciplines for over 45 years. We introduce the notation of knowledge inheritance as the overlap in the set of references between years. We discuss two modes of knowledge inheritance of disciplines-successive and distant. To quantify the status and propensity of knowledge inheritance for disciplines, we propose two indicators: one descriptively describes knowledge base evolution, and one estimates the propensity of knowledge inheritance. When observing the continuity in knowledge bases for disciplines, we show distinct patterns for STEM and SS&H disciplines: the former inherits knowledge bases more successively, yet the latter inherits significantly from distant knowledge bases. We further discover stagnation or revival in knowledge base evolution where older knowledge base ceases to decay after 10 years (e.g., Physics and Mathematics) and are increasingly reused (e.g., Philosophy). Regarding the propensity of inheriting prior knowledge bases, we observe unanimous rises in both successive and distant knowledge inheritance. We show that knowledge inheritance could reveal disciplinary characteristics regarding the trajectory of knowledge base evolution and interesting insights into the metabolism and maturity of scholarly communication.

0.024815073 = product of:
  0.09926029 = sum of:
    0.09926029 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09926029 = score(doc=5980,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.5067985 = fieldWeight in 5980, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5980)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Theory is a kind of condensed human knowledge. This paper is to examine the mechanism of interdisciplinary diffusion of theoretical knowledge by tracing the diffusion of a representative theory, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Design/methodology/approach Based on the full-scale dataset of Web of Science (WoS), the citations of Davis's original work about TAM were analysed and the interdisciplinary diffusion paths of TAM were delineated, a supervised machine learning method was used to extract theory incidents, and a content analysis was used to categorize the patterns of theory evolution. Findings It is found that the diffusion of a theory is intertwined with its evolution. In the process, the role that a participating discipline play is related to its knowledge distance from the original disciplines of TAM. With the distance increases, the capacity to support theory development and innovation weakens, while that to assume analytical tools for practical problems increases. During the diffusion, a theory evolves into new extensions in four theoretical construction patterns, elaboration, proliferation, competition and integration. Research limitations/implications The study does not only deepen the understanding of the trajectory of a theory but also enriches the research of knowledge diffusion and innovation. Originality/value The study elaborates the relationship between theory diffusion and theory development, reveals the roles of the participating disciplines played in theory diffusion and vice versa, interprets four patterns of theory evolution and uses text mining technique to extract theory incidents, which makes up for the shortcomings of citation analysis and content analysis used in previous studies.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=5813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a famous network-based method for understanding the evolution of a scientific domain. Most existing methods have two steps, weighting citation arcs based on search path counting and exploring main paths in a greedy fashion, with the assumption that citation networks are acyclic. The only available proposal that avoids manual cycle removal is to preprint transform a cyclic network to an acyclic counterpart. Through a detailed discussion about the issues concerning this approach, especially deriving the "de-preprinted" main paths for the original network, this article proposes an alternative solution with two-fold contributions. Based on the argument that a publication cannot influence itself through a citation cycle, the SimSPC algorithm is proposed to weight citation arcs by counting simple search paths. A set of algorithms are further proposed for main path exploration and extraction directly from cyclic networks based on a novel data structure main path tree. The experiments on two cyclic citation networks demonstrate the usefulness of the alternative solution. In the meanwhile, experiments show that publications in strongly connected components may sit on the turning points of main path networks, which signifies the necessity of a systematic way of dealing with citation cycles.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=5948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5948)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics. This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact 1996-2018 for six million articles from seven large English-speaking nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. The results show that a small female citation advantage has been the norm over time for all these countries except the USA, where there has been no practical difference. The female citation advantage is largest, and statistically significant in most years, for Australia and the UK. This suggests that any academic bias against citing female-authored research cannot explain current employment inequalities. Nevertheless, comparisons using recent citation data, or avoiding it altogether, during appointments or promotion may disadvantage females in some countries by underestimating the likely greater impact of their work, especially in the long term.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Empirical evidence demonstrates that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Such asymmetry has sparked significant debate regarding the use of citations for research evaluation. However, a consensus has yet to be established concerning the historical trends in citation concentration. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This ongoing debate stems from a lack of technical clarity in measuring inequality. Given the variations in citation practices across disciplines and over time, it is crucial to account for multiple factors that can influence the findings. This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration. Our results indicate a decreasing trend in citation concentration, primarily driven by a decline in uncited articles, which, in turn, can be attributed to the growing significance of Asia and Europe. On the whole, our findings clarify current debates on citation concentration and show that, contrary to a widely-held belief, citations are increasingly scattered.

0.01146159 = product of:
  0.04584636 = sum of:
    0.04584636 = weight(_text_:evolution in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584636 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

0.002504988 = product of:
  0.010019952 = sum of:
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.002504988 = product of:
  0.010019952 = sum of:
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2023 18:37:33

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:02

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.0020874902 = product of:
  0.008349961 = sum of:
    0.008349961 = product of:
      0.025049882 = sum of:
        0.025049882 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049882 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50