Search (141 results, page 1 of 8)

0.09691254 = product of:
  0.19382508 = sum of:
    0.19382508 = sum of:
      0.15213132 = weight(_text_:networks in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15213132 = score(doc=918,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.6271047 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.041693762 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041693762 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.05489567 = product of:
  0.10979134 = sum of:
    0.10979134 = product of:
      0.21958268 = sum of:
        0.21958268 = weight(_text_:networks in 860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21958268 = score(doc=860,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.90514773 = fieldWeight in 860, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: Agüera y Arcas, B.: Artificial neural networks are making strides towards consciousness..

Source

¬The Economist. 2022, [https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/06/09/artificial-neural-networks-today-are-not-conscious-according-to-douglas-hofstadter?giftId=81ea03d7-78f3-4e84-8824-6aa9dac9ab01]

0.05489567 = product of:
  0.10979134 = sum of:
    0.10979134 = product of:
      0.21958268 = sum of:
        0.21958268 = weight(_text_:networks in 861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21958268 = score(doc=861,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.90514773 = fieldWeight in 861, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: Hofstadter, D.: Artificial neural networks today are not conscious.

Source

¬The Economist. 2022, [https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/06/09/artificial-neural-networks-are-making-strides-towards-consciousness-according-to-blaise-aguera-y-arcas?giftId=89e08696-9884-4670-b164-df58fffdf067]

0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When people experience major life changes, this often impacts their self-presentation, networks, and online behavior in substantial ways. To effectively study major life transitions and events, we surveyed a large U.S. sample (n = 554) to create the Major Life Events Taxonomy, a list of 121 life events in 12 categories. We then applied this taxonomy to a second large U.S. survey sample (n = 775) to understand on average how much social readjustment each event required, how likely each event was to be shared on social media with different types of audiences, and how much online network separation each involved. We found that social readjustment is positively correlated with sharing on social media, with both broad audiences and close ties as well as in online spaces separate from one's network of known ties. Some life transitions involve high levels of sharing with both separate audiences and broad audiences on social media, providing evidence for what previous research has called social media as social transition machinery. Researchers can use the Major Life Events Taxonomy to examine how people's life transition experiences relate to their behaviors, technology use, and health and well-being outcomes.

Date

10. 6.2021 19:22:47

0.049066424 = product of:
  0.09813285 = sum of:
    0.09813285 = sum of:
      0.06338805 = weight(_text_:networks in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06338805 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.034744803 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034744803 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051289067 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.040730316 = product of:
  0.08146063 = sum of:
    0.08146063 = product of:
      0.24438189 = sum of:
        0.24438189 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24438189 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43482926 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.035435 = product of:
  0.07087 = sum of:
    0.07087 = product of:
      0.14174 = sum of:
        0.14174 = weight(_text_:networks in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14174 = score(doc=5813,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.5842703 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.033941932 = product of:
  0.067883864 = sum of:
    0.067883864 = product of:
      0.20365158 = sum of:
        0.20365158 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20365158 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43482926 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.033941932 = product of:
  0.067883864 = sum of:
    0.067883864 = product of:
      0.20365158 = sum of:
        0.20365158 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20365158 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43482926 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.031694025 = product of:
  0.06338805 = sum of:
    0.06338805 = product of:
      0.1267761 = sum of:
        0.1267761 = weight(_text_:networks in 5610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1267761 = score(doc=5610,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.52258724 = fieldWeight in 5610, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media data provide increasing opportunities for the automated analysis of large sets of textual documents. So far, automated tools have been developed either to account for the social networks among participants in the debates, or to analyze the content of these debates. Less attention has been paid to mapping co-occurrences of actors (participants) and topics (content) in online debates that can be considered as socio-semantic networks. We propose a new, automated approach that uses the whole matrix of co-addressed topics and actors for understanding and visualizing online debates. We show the advantages of the new approach with the analysis of two data sets: first, a large set of English-language Twitter messages at the Rio?+?20 meeting, in June 2012 (72,077 tweets), and second, a smaller data set of Dutch-language Twitter messages on bird flu related to poultry farming in 2015-2017 (2,139 tweets). We discuss the theoretical, methodological, and substantive implications of our approach, also for the analysis of other social media data.

0.031375486 = product of:
  0.06275097 = sum of:
    0.06275097 = product of:
      0.12550195 = sum of:
        0.12550195 = weight(_text_:networks in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12550195 = score(doc=719,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.517335 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) as networks of knowledge have the potential to inform AI operations. This paper explores natural language processing and machine learning in the context of KOS and Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) technology. The paper presents three use cases: HIVE and Historical Knowledge Networks, HIVE for Materials Science (HIVE-4-MAT), and Using HIVE to Enhance and Explore Medical Ontologies. The background section reviews AI foundations, while the use cases provide a frame of reference for discussing current progress and implications of connecting KOS to AI in digital resource collections.

0.027447835 = product of:
  0.05489567 = sum of:
    0.05489567 = product of:
      0.10979134 = sum of:
        0.10979134 = weight(_text_:networks in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10979134 = score(doc=5963,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.

0.027447835 = product of:
  0.05489567 = sum of:
    0.05489567 = product of:
      0.10979134 = sum of:
        0.10979134 = weight(_text_:networks in 561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10979134 = score(doc=561,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 561, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The popularity of location-based features in social networks has been increasing over the past few years. Location information gathered from social networks can threaten users' information privacy through granular tracking and exposure of their preferences, behaviors, and identity. In this 6-week study (N = 35), we investigate the effect of "audience-group"-based interventions on Facebook check-in behavior of participants. These "audience-group"-based nudges help close the gap between the users' perceived audiences and those that are permitted to view their check-ins. The nudges remind users that their real-time location information may be visible to a larger group of friends than they expect. Based on both quantitative and qualitative data analyses, we report that reminding users of the unexpected audiences that have access to their location check-ins could be a promising way to help users manage their privacy in online location sharing. These findings motivate several recommendations for app designers as well as information privacy researchers to better design and evaluate location sharing in online social networks.

0.027447835 = product of:
  0.05489567 = sum of:
    0.05489567 = product of:
      0.10979134 = sum of:
        0.10979134 = weight(_text_:networks in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10979134 = score(doc=1089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that the age-related digital divide prevents older adults from enhancing their quality of life. To bridge this gap and promote active aging, this study explores the interplay between social networks and older adults' use of information and communication technology (ICT). Using an action-oriented field research approach, we offered technical help (29 help sessions) to older adult participants recruited from western China. Then, we conducted content analysis to examine the obtained video, audio, and text data. Our results show that, first, different types of social networks significantly influence older adults' ICT use in terms of digital skills, engagement, and attitudes; however, these effects vary from person to person. In particular, our results highlight the crucial role of a stable and long-term supportive social network in learning and mastering ICT for older residents. Second, technical help facilitates the building and reinforcing of such a social network for the participants. Our study has strong implications in that policymakers can foster the digital inclusion of older people through supportive social networks.

0.026893275 = product of:
  0.05378655 = sum of:
    0.05378655 = product of:
      0.1075731 = sum of:
        0.1075731 = weight(_text_:networks in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1075731 = score(doc=1205,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.44343 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Detecting science-technology hierarchical linkages is beneficial for understanding deep interactions between science and technology (S&T). Previous studies have mainly focused on linear linkages between S&T but ignored their structural linkages. In this paper, we propose a network coupling approach to inspect hierarchical interactions of S&T by integrating their knowledge linkages and structural linkages. S&T knowledge networks are first enhanced with bidirectional encoder representation from transformers (BERT) knowledge alignment, and then their hierarchical structures are identified based on K-core decomposition. Hierarchical coupling preferences and strengths of the S&T networks over time are further calculated based on similarities of coupling nodes' degree distribution and similarities of coupling edges' weight distribution. Extensive experimental results indicate that our approach is feasible and robust in identifying the coupling hierarchy with superior performance compared to other isomorphism and dissimilarity algorithms. Our research extends the mindset of S&T linkage measurement by identifying patterns and paths of the interaction of S&T hierarchical knowledge.

0.024321362 = product of:
  0.048642725 = sum of:
    0.048642725 = product of:
      0.09728545 = sum of:
        0.09728545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09728545 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17960557 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.022411061 = product of:
  0.044822123 = sum of:
    0.044822123 = product of:
      0.089644246 = sum of:
        0.089644246 = weight(_text_:networks in 21) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089644246 = score(doc=21,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 21, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=21)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The "author" is a concept central to many publication and documentation practices, often carrying legal, professional, social, and personal importance. Typically viewed as the solitary owner of their creations, a person is held responsible for their work and positioned to receive the praise and criticism that may emerge in its wake. Although the role of the individual within creative production is undeniable, literary (Foucault 1977; Bloom 1997) and knowledge organization (Moulaison et. al. 2014) theorists have challenged the view that the work of one person can-or should-be fully detached from their professional and personal networks. As these relationships often provide important context and reveal the role of community in the creation of new things, their absence from catalog records presents a falsely simplified view of the creative process. Here, we address the consequences of what we call the "author-asowner" concept and suggest that an "author-as-node" approach, which situates an author within their networks of influence, may allow for more relational representation within knowledge organization systems, a framing that emphasizes rather than erases the messy complexities that affect the production of new objects and ideas.

0.022411061 = product of:
  0.044822123 = sum of:
    0.044822123 = product of:
      0.089644246 = sum of:
        0.089644246 = weight(_text_:networks in 491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089644246 = score(doc=491,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 491, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Combining computational technologies and humanities is an ongoing effort aimed at making resources such as texts, images, audio, video, and other artifacts digitally available, searchable, and analyzable. In recent years, deep neural networks (DNN) dominate the field of automatic text analysis and natural language processing (NLP), in some cases presenting a super-human performance. DNNs are the state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms solving many NLP tasks that are relevant for Digital Humanities (DH) research, such as spell checking, language detection, entity extraction, author detection, question answering, and other tasks. These supervised algorithms learn patterns from a large number of "right" and "wrong" examples and apply them to new examples. However, using DNNs for analyzing the text resources in DH research presents two main challenges: (un)availability of training data and a need for domain adaptation. This paper explores these challenges by analyzing multiple use-cases of DH studies in recent literature and their possible solutions and lays out a practical decision model for DH experts for when and how to choose the appropriate deep learning approaches for their research. Moreover, in this paper, we aim to raise awareness of the benefits of utilizing deep learning models in the DH community.

0.022411061 = product of:
  0.044822123 = sum of:
    0.044822123 = product of:
      0.089644246 = sum of:
        0.089644246 = weight(_text_:networks in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089644246 = score(doc=948,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.

0.02218582 = product of:
  0.04437164 = sum of:
    0.04437164 = product of:
      0.08874328 = sum of:
        0.08874328 = weight(_text_:networks in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08874328 = score(doc=5719,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24259318 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051289067 = queryNorm
            0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The VOSviewer software provides easy access to bibliometric mapping using data from Dimensions, Scopus and Web of Science. The properly formatted and structured citation data, and the ease in which it can be exported open up new avenues for use during citation searches and eference interviews. This paper details specific techniques for using advanced searches in Dimensions, exporting the citation data, and drawing insights from the maps produced in VOS Viewer. These search techniques and data export practices are fast and accurate enough to build into reference interviews for graduate students, faculty, and post-PhD researchers. The search results derived from them are accurate and allow a more comprehensive view of citation networks embedded in ordinary complex boolean searches.