Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025403023 = product of:
  0.10161209 = sum of:
    0.10161209 = weight(_text_:policy in 2155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10161209 = score(doc=2155,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 2141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=2141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.01796265 = product of:
  0.0718506 = sum of:
    0.0718506 = weight(_text_:policy in 2039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0718506 = score(doc=2039,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).

0.0094307605 = product of:
  0.037723042 = sum of:
    0.037723042 = product of:
      0.075446084 = sum of:
        0.075446084 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075446084 = score(doc=684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.3035229 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the increasing number and diversity of search tools available, interest in the evaluation of search systems, particularly from a user perspective, has grown among researchers. More researchers are designing and evaluating interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems and beginning to innovate in evaluation methods. Maturation of a research specialty relies on the ability to replicate research, provide standards for measurement and analysis, and understand past endeavors. This article presents a historical overview of 40 years of IIR evaluation studies using the method of systematic review. A total of 2,791 journal and conference units were manually examined and 127 articles were selected for analysis in this study, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles were systematically coded using features such as author, publication date, sources and references, and properties of the research method used in the articles, such as number of subjects, tasks, corpora, and measures. Results include data describing the growth of IIR studies over time, the most frequently occurring and cited authors and sources, and the most common types of corpora and measures used. An additional product of this research is a bibliography of IIR evaluation research that can be used by students, teachers, and those new to the area. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first historical, systematic characterization of the IIR evaluation literature, including the documentation of methods and measures used by researchers in this specialty.