Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025161162 = product of:
  0.050322324 = sum of:
    0.050322324 = product of:
      0.10064465 = sum of:
        0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 5252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10064465 = score(doc=5252,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 5252, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Measuring the relatedness between bibliometric units (journals, documents, authors, or words) is a central task in bibliometric analysis. Relatedness measures are used for many different tasks, among them the generating of maps, or visual pictures, showing the relationship between all items from these data. Despite the importance of these tasks, there has been little written an how to quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of relatedness measures or the resulting maps. The authors propose a new framework for assessing the performance of relatedness measures and visualization algorithms that contains four factors: accuracy, coverage, scalability, and robustness. This method was applied to 10 measures of journal-journal relatedness to determine the best measure. The 10 relatedness measures were then used as inputs to a visualization algorithm to create an additional 10 measures of journal-journal relatedness based an the distances between pairs of journals in two-dimensional space. This second step determines robustness (i.e., which measure remains best after dimension reduction). Results show that, for low coverage (under 50%), the Pearson correlation is the most accurate raw relatedness measure. However, the best overall measure, both at high coverage, and after dimension reduction, is the cosine index or a modified cosine index. Results also showed that the visualization algorithm increased local accuracy for most measures. Possible reasons for this counterintuitive finding are discussed.

0.024477057 = product of:
  0.048954114 = sum of:
    0.048954114 = product of:
      0.09790823 = sum of:
        0.09790823 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09790823 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:17:40

0.021349952 = product of:
  0.042699903 = sum of:
    0.042699903 = product of:
      0.08539981 = sum of:
        0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08539981 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.

0.020128928 = product of:
  0.040257856 = sum of:
    0.040257856 = product of:
      0.08051571 = sum of:
        0.08051571 = weight(_text_:journals in 5244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08051571 = score(doc=5244,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.3138165 = fieldWeight in 5244, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Boyack, Wylie, and Davidson developed VxInsight which transforms information from documents into a landscape representation which conveys information on the implicit structure of the data as context for queries and exploration. From a list of pre-computed similarities it creates on a plane an x,y location for each item, or can compute its own similarities based on direct and co-citation linkages. Three-dimensional overlays are then generated on the plane to show the extent of clustering at particular points. Metadata associated with clustered objects provides a label for each peak from common words. Clicking on an object will provide citation information and answer sets for queries run will be displayed as markers on the landscape. A time slider allows a view of terrain changes over time. In a test on the microsystems engineering literature a review article was used to provide seed terms to search Science Citation Index and retrieve 20,923 articles of which 13,433 were connected by citation to at least one other article in the set. The citation list was used to calculate similarity measures and x.y coordinates for each article. Four main categories made up the landscape with 90% of the articles directly related to one or more of the four. A second test used five databases: SCI, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Engineering Index, INSPEC, and Medline to extract 17,927 unique articles by Sandia, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with text of abstracts and RetrievalWare 6.6 utilized to generate the similarity measures. The subsequent map revealed that despite some overlap the laboratories generally publish in different areas. A third test on 3000 physical science journals utilized 4.7 million articles from SCI where similarity was the un-normalized sum of cites between journals in both directions. Physics occupies a central position, with engineering, mathematics, computing, and materials science strongly linked. Chemistry is farther removed but strongly connected.

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 4956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=4956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 4956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We describe two general approaches to creating document-level maps of science. To create a local map, one defines and directly maps a sample of data, such as all literature published in a set of information science journals. To create a global map of a research field, one maps "all of science" and then locates a literature sample within that full context. We provide a deductive argument that global mapping should create more accurate partitions of a research field than does local mapping, followed by practical reasons why this may not be so. The field of information science is then mapped at the document level using both local and global methods to provide a case illustration of the differences between the methods. Textual coherence is used to assess the accuracies of both maps. We find that document clusters in the global map have significantly higher coherence than do those in the local map, and that the global map provides unique insights into the field of information science that cannot be discerned from the local map. Specifically, we show that information science and computer science have a large interface and that computer science is the more progressive discipline at that interface. We also show that research communities in temporally linked threads have a much higher coherence than do isolated communities, and that this feature can be used to predict which threads will persist into a subsequent year. Methods that could increase the accuracy of both local and global maps in the future also are discussed.

0.010384736 = product of:
  0.020769471 = sum of:
    0.020769471 = product of:
      0.041538943 = sum of:
        0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 2736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041538943 = score(doc=2736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2736, 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=2736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:49:33