Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013439858 = product of:
  0.053759433 = sum of:
    0.053759433 = weight(_text_:data in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053759433 = score(doc=1202,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=1037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1037)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents a user study showing the effectiveness of a linked-based, virtual integration infrastructure that gives users access to relevant online resources, empowering them to design an information-seeking path that is specifically relevant to their context. IntegraL provides a lightweight approach to improve and augment search functionality by dynamically generating context-focused "anchors" for recognized elements of interest generated by library services. This article includes a description of how IntegraL's design supports users' information-seeking behavior. A full user study with both objective and subjective measures of IntegraL and hypothesis testing regarding IntegraL's effectiveness of the user's information-seeking experience are described along with data analysis, implications arising from this kind of virtual integration, and possible future directions.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been attracting more attention in recent decades. In this article, we compare the similarity between scientific research domains and quantifying the temporal similarities of domains. We narrowed our study to three research domains: information retrieval (IR), database (DB), and World Wide Web (W3), because the rapid development of the W3 domain substantially attracted research efforts from both IR and DB domains and introduced new research questions to these two areas. Most existing approaches either employed a content-based technique or a cocitation or coauthorship network-based technique to study the development trend of a research area. In this work, we proposed an effective way to quantify the similarities among different research domains by incorporating content similarity and coauthorship network similarity. Experimental results on DBLP (DataBase systems and Logic Programming) data related to IR, DB, and W3 domains showed that the W3 domain was getting closer to both IR and DB whereas the distance between IR and DB remained relatively constant. In addition, comparing to IR and W3 with the DB domain, the DB domain was more conservative and evolved relatively slower.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To understand the current state of a discipline and to discover new knowledge of a certain theme, one builds bibliometric content networks based on the present knowledge entities. However, such networks can vary according to the collection of data sets relevant to the theme by querying knowledge entities. In this study we classify three different bibliometric content networks. The primary bibliometric network is based on knowledge entities relevant to a keyword of the theme, the secondary network is based on entities associated with the lower concepts of the keyword, and the tertiary network is based on entities influenced by the theme. To explore the content and properties of these networks, we propose a tomographic content analysis that takes a slice-and-dice approach to analyzing the networks. Our findings indicate that the primary network is best suited to understanding the current knowledge on a certain topic, whereas the secondary network is good at discovering new knowledge across fields associated with the topic, and the tertiary network is appropriate for outlining the current knowledge of the topic and relevant studies.

0.0063588563 = product of:
  0.025435425 = sum of:
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Big Science and cross-disciplinary collaborations have reshaped the intellectual structure of research areas. A number of works have tried to uncover this hidden intellectual structure by analyzing citation contexts. However, none of them analyzed by document logical structures such as sections. The two major goals of this study are to find characteristics of authors who are highly cited section-wise and to identify the differences in section-wise author networks. This study uses 29,158 of research articles culled from the ACL Anthology, which hosts articles on computational linguistics and natural language processing. We find that the distribution of citations across sections is skewed and that a different set of highly cited authors share distinct academic characteristics, according to their citation locations. Furthermore, the author networks based on citation context similarity reveal that the intellectual structure of a domain differs across different sections.

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.0039652926 = product of:
  0.01586117 = sum of:
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4545, 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=4545)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1.11.2018 18:19:22