Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026094392 = product of:
  0.052188784 = sum of:
    0.052188784 = product of:
      0.10437757 = sum of:
        0.10437757 = weight(_text_:22 in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10437757 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:13:11

0.026094392 = product of:
  0.052188784 = sum of:
    0.052188784 = product of:
      0.10437757 = sum of:
        0.10437757 = weight(_text_:22 in 1359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10437757 = score(doc=1359,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 1359, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:20:07

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

We investigate the influence of culture and identity (geographic location) on the constitution of a specific research field. Using as case study the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) project in the Astronomy field, we analyzed texts from bibliographic records of publications along three cultural and geographic axes: US only publications, non-US publications and international collaboration. Using three text mining systems (CiteSpace, TermWatch and PEx), we were able to automatically identify the topics specific to each cultural and geographic region as well as isolate the core research topics common to all geographic zones. The results tended to show that US-only and non-US research in this field shared more commonalities with international collaboration than with one another, thus indicating that the former two (US-only and non-US) research focused on rather distinct topics.

0.0076881335 = product of:
  0.015376267 = sum of:
    0.015376267 = product of:
      0.030752534 = sum of:
        0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752534 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.0076881335 = product of:
  0.015376267 = sum of:
    0.015376267 = product of:
      0.030752534 = sum of:
        0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752534 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:50:00

0.006651316 = product of:
  0.013302632 = sum of:
    0.013302632 = product of:
      0.026605263 = sum of:
        0.026605263 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026605263 = score(doc=4286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.15054363 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.