Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × author_ss:"Chen, C."
  1. Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001) 0.00
    0.0035694437 = product of:
      0.014277775 = sum of:
        0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014277775 = score(doc=5766,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.315-330
  2. Chen, C.; Czerwinski, M.; Macredie, R.: Individual differences in virtual environments : introduction and overview (2000) 0.00
    0.0033256328 = product of:
      0.013302531 = sum of:
        0.013302531 = weight(_text_:information in 4600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013302531 = score(doc=4600,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4600, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4600)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The practical significances of identifying and accomodating individual differences has been established across a number of fields of research. There is a renewed interest in individual differences due to the advances in virtual environments, especially through far-reaching technologies such as information visualization and 3D graphical user interfaces on the WWW. The effects of individual differences on the use of these new technologies are yet to be found out. More fundamentally, theories and methods developed for the earlier generations of information systems are subject to a close examination of their applicability, efficiency, and effectiveness. In this article, we present a brief historical overview of research in in individual differences in the context of virtual environments. In particular, we highlight the notion of structure in the perception of individual users of an information system and the role of individuals' abilities to recognize and use such structures to perform various information-intensive tasks. Striking the balance between individuals' abilities and the demanding task for detecting, understanding, and utilizing such structures is an emerging theme across the 5 articles in this special issue. We outline the approaches and the major findings of these articles with reference to this central theme
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.6, S.499-507
  3. Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003) 0.00
    0.0026605062 = product of:
      0.010642025 = sum of:
        0.010642025 = weight(_text_:information in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010642025 = score(doc=2213,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
    The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.
  4. Börner, K.; Chen, C.; Boyack, K.W.: Visualizing knowledge domains (2002) 0.00
    0.002327943 = product of:
      0.009311772 = sum of:
        0.009311772 = weight(_text_:information in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009311772 = score(doc=4286,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.179-258
  5. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.00
    0.0021033147 = product of:
      0.008413259 = sum of:
        0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008413259 = score(doc=5272,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.359-377
  6. Chen, C.: Visualizing scientific paradigms : an introduction (2003) 0.00
    0.0020821756 = product of:
      0.008328702 = sum of:
        0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 1455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008328702 = score(doc=1455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1455)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.392-393
  7. Chen, C.; Kuljis, J.: ¬The rising landscape : a visual exploration of superstring revolutions in physics (2003) 0.00
    0.0020821756 = product of:
      0.008328702 = sum of:
        0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 1469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008328702 = score(doc=1469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1469)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.435-446
  8. Chen, C.; Cribbin, T.; Macredie, R.; Morar, S.: Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms : two case studies (2002) 0.00
    0.0017847219 = product of:
      0.0071388874 = sum of:
        0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071388874 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.678.689
  9. Chen, C.: Individual differences in a spatial-semantic virtual environment (2000) 0.00
    0.0014872681 = product of:
      0.0059490725 = sum of:
        0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 4603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059490725 = score(doc=4603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4603)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.6, S.529-542