Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.021731397 = product of:
  0.06519419 = sum of:
    0.06519419 = weight(_text_:resources in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06519419 = score(doc=4970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.349276 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.

0.017743612 = product of:
  0.053230833 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

0.017743612 = product of:
  0.053230833 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

0.0128368875 = product of:
  0.03851066 = sum of:
    0.03851066 = product of:
      0.07702132 = sum of:
        0.07702132 = weight(_text_:management in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07702132 = score(doc=6487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 6487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.6, S.817-842

0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.

0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.

0.010481276 = product of:
  0.031443827 = sum of:
    0.031443827 = product of:
      0.06288765 = sum of:
        0.06288765 = weight(_text_:management in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06288765 = score(doc=4402,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.3648795 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.
Support for evolving ontologies is required in almost all situations where ontologies are used in real-world applications. In those cases, ontologies are often developed by several persons and will continue to evolve over time, because of changes in the real world, adaptations to different tasks, or alignments to other ontologies. To prevent that such changes will invalidate existing usage, a change management methodology is needed. This involves advanced versioning methods for the development and the maintenance of ontologies, but also configuration management, that takes care of the identification, relations and interpretation of ontology versions. All these aspects come together in integrated ontology library systems. When the number of different ontologies is increasing, the task of storing, maintaining and re-organizing them to secure the successful re-use of ontologies is challenging. Ontology library systems can help in the grouping and reorganizing ontologies for further re-use, integration, maintenance, mapping and versioning. Basically, a library system offers various functions for managing, adapting and standardizing groups of ontologies. Such integrated systems are a requirement for the Semantic Web to grow further and scale up. In this chapter, we describe a number of results with respect to the above mentioned areas. We start with a description of the alignment task and show a meta-ontology that is developed to specify the mappings. Then, we discuss the problems that are caused by evolving ontologies and describe two important elements of a change management methodology. Finally, in Section 4.4 we survey existing library systems and formulate a wish-list of features of an ontology library system.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.008557925 = product of:
  0.025673775 = sum of:
    0.025673775 = product of:
      0.05134755 = sum of:
        0.05134755 = weight(_text_:management in 2704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05134755 = score(doc=2704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 2704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 47(2011) no.1, S.125-134

0.00808256 = product of:
  0.02424768 = sum of:
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21