-
Ekbia, H.; Mattioli, M.; Kouper, I.; Arave, G.; Ghazinejad, A.; Bowman, T.; Suri, V.R.; Tsou, A.; Weingart, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.: Big data, bigger dilemmas : a critical review (2015)
0.03
0.028560705 = product of:
0.05712141 = sum of:
0.05712141 = product of:
0.11424282 = sum of:
0.11424282 = weight(_text_:policy in 2155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11424282 = score(doc=2155,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 2155, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2155)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The recent interest in Big Data has generated a broad range of new academic, corporate, and policy practices along with an evolving debate among its proponents, detractors, and skeptics. While the practices draw on a common set of tools, techniques, and technologies, most contributions to the debate come either from a particular disciplinary perspective or with a focus on a domain-specific issue. A close examination of these contributions reveals a set of common problematics that arise in various guises and in different places. It also demonstrates the need for a critical synthesis of the conceptual and practical dilemmas surrounding Big Data. The purpose of this article is to provide such a synthesis by drawing on relevant writings in the sciences, humanities, policy, and trade literature. In bringing these diverse literatures together, we aim to shed light on the common underlying issues that concern and affect all of these areas. By contextualizing the phenomenon of Big Data within larger socioeconomic developments, we also seek to provide a broader understanding of its drivers, barriers, and challenges. This approach allows us to identify attributes of Big Data that require more attention-autonomy, opacity, generativity, disparity, and futurity-leading to questions and ideas for moving beyond dilemmas.
-
Yan, E.; Sugimoto, C.R.: Institutional interactions : exploring social, cognitive, and geographic relationships between institutions as demonstrated through citation networks (2011)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The objective of this research is to examine the interaction of institutions, based on their citation and collaboration networks. The domain of library and information science is examined, using data from 1965-2010. A linear model is formulated to explore the factors that are associated with institutional citation behaviors, using the number of citations as the dependent variable, and the number of collaborations, physical distance, and topical distance as independent variables. It is found that institutional citation behaviors are associated with social, topical, and geographical factors. Dynamically, the number of citations is becoming more associated with collaboration intensity and less dependent on the country boundary and/or physical distance. This research is informative for scientometricians and policy makers.
-
Gazni, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Didegah, F.: Mapping world scientific collaboration : authors, institutions, and countries (2012)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Weingart, S.: ¬The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity (2015)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 2141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=2141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2141)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria for and definitions of disciplinarity, and how they differ between different types of literature. Design/methodology/approach This synthesis is achieved through a purposive review of three types of literature: explicit conceptualizations of disciplinarity; narrative histories of disciplines; and operationalizations of disciplinarity. Findings Each angle of discussing disciplinarity presents distinct criteria. However, there are a few common axes upon which conceptualizations, disciplinary narratives, and measurements revolve: communication, social features, topical coherence, and institutions. Originality/value There is considerable ambiguity in the concept of a discipline. This is of particular concern in a heightened assessment culture, where decisions about funding and resource allocation are often discipline-dependent (or focussed exclusively on interdisciplinary endeavors). This work explores the varied nature of disciplinarity and, through synthesis of the literature, presents a framework of criteria that can be used to guide science policy makers, scientometricians, administrators, and others interested in defining, constructing, and evaluating disciplines.
-
Demarest, B.; Sugimoto, C.R.: Argue, observe, assess : measuring disciplinary identities and differences through socio-epistemic discourse (2015)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 2039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=2039,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 2039, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2039)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Calls for interdisciplinary collaboration have become increasingly common in the face of large-scale complex problems (including climate change, economic inequality, and education, among others); however, outcomes of such collaborations have been mixed, due, among other things, to the so-called "translation problem" in interdisciplinary research. This article presents a potential solution: an empirical approach to quantitatively measure both the degree and nature of differences among disciplinary tongues through the social and epistemic terms used (a research area we refer to as discourse epistemetrics), in a case study comparing dissertations in philosophy, psychology, and physics. Using a support-vector model of machine learning to classify disciplines based on relative frequencies of social and epistemic terms, we were able to markedly improve accuracy over a random selection baseline (distinguishing between disciplines with as high as 90% accuracy) as well as acquire sets of most indicative terms for each discipline by their relative presence or absence. These lists were then considered in light of findings of sociological and epistemological studies of disciplines and found to validate the approach's measure of social and epistemic disciplinary identities and contrasts. Based on the findings of our study, we conclude by considering the beneficiaries of research in this area, including bibliometricians, students, and science policy makers, among others, as well as laying out a research program that expands the number of disciplines, considers shifts in socio-epistemic identities over time and applies these methods to nonacademic epistemological communities (e.g., political groups).
