Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012991659 = product of:
  0.038974978 = sum of:
    0.038974978 = product of:
      0.11692493 = sum of:
        0.11692493 = weight(_text_:network in 3606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11692493 = score(doc=3606,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.6026149 = fieldWeight in 3606, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3606)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To understand the current state of a discipline and to discover new knowledge of a certain theme, one builds bibliometric content networks based on the present knowledge entities. However, such networks can vary according to the collection of data sets relevant to the theme by querying knowledge entities. In this study we classify three different bibliometric content networks. The primary bibliometric network is based on knowledge entities relevant to a keyword of the theme, the secondary network is based on entities associated with the lower concepts of the keyword, and the tertiary network is based on entities influenced by the theme. To explore the content and properties of these networks, we propose a tomographic content analysis that takes a slice-and-dice approach to analyzing the networks. Our findings indicate that the primary network is best suited to understanding the current knowledge on a certain topic, whereas the secondary network is good at discovering new knowledge across fields associated with the topic, and the tertiary network is appropriate for outlining the current knowledge of the topic and relevant studies.

0.0127291735 = product of:
  0.03818752 = sum of:
    0.03818752 = product of:
      0.114562556 = sum of:
        0.114562556 = weight(_text_:network in 4036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114562556 = score(doc=4036,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.59043956 = fieldWeight in 4036, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4036)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this study, we propose a framework for detecting topic evolutions in weighted citation networks. Citation networks are important in studying knowledge flows; however, citation network analysis has primarily focused on binary networks in which the individual citation influences of each cited paper in a citing paper are considered identical, even though not all cited papers have a significant influence on the cited publication. Accordingly, it is necessary to build and analyze a citation network comprising scholarly publications that notably impact one another, thus identifying topic evolution in a more precise manner. To measure the strength of citation influence and identify paper topics, we employ a citation influence topic model primarily based on topical inheritance between cited and citing papers. Using scholarly publications in the field of the protein p53 as a case study, we build a citation network, filter it using citation influence values, and examine the diffusion of topics not only in the field but also in the subfields of p53.

0.00918649 = product of:
  0.02755947 = sum of:
    0.02755947 = product of:
      0.08267841 = sum of:
        0.08267841 = weight(_text_:network in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08267841 = score(doc=744,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been attracting more attention in recent decades. In this article, we compare the similarity between scientific research domains and quantifying the temporal similarities of domains. We narrowed our study to three research domains: information retrieval (IR), database (DB), and World Wide Web (W3), because the rapid development of the W3 domain substantially attracted research efforts from both IR and DB domains and introduced new research questions to these two areas. Most existing approaches either employed a content-based technique or a cocitation or coauthorship network-based technique to study the development trend of a research area. In this work, we proposed an effective way to quantify the similarities among different research domains by incorporating content similarity and coauthorship network similarity. Experimental results on DBLP (DataBase systems and Logic Programming) data related to IR, DB, and W3 domains showed that the W3 domain was getting closer to both IR and DB whereas the distance between IR and DB remained relatively constant. In addition, comparing to IR and W3 with the DB domain, the DB domain was more conservative and evolved relatively slower.

0.0053038225 = product of:
  0.015911467 = sum of:
    0.015911467 = product of:
      0.047734402 = sum of:
        0.047734402 = weight(_text_:network in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047734402 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

YouTube is a successful social network that people use to upload, watch, and comment on videos. We believe comments left on these videos can provide insight into user interests, but to this point have not been used to map out a specific video community. Our study investigates whether and how user commenting behavior impacts the topology of the K-pop video community through analysis of co-commenting behavior on these videos. We apply a traditional author cocitation analysis to this behavior, in a process we refer to as co-comment analysis, to detect the topology of this community. This involves: a) an analysis of user co-comments to elicit the inclination of user homophily within the community; b) an analysis of user co-comments, weighted frequency of co-comments, to detect user interests in the community; and c) an analysis of user co-comments, weighted sentiment scores, to capture user opinions by polarity. The results indicate that users who comment on specific K-pop videos also tend to comment on topically similar YouTube videos. We also find that the number of comments made by users correlates with the degree of positivity of their comments. Conversely, users who comment negatively on K-pop videos are not inclined to form specific user groups, but rather present only their opinions individually.

0.003971059 = product of:
  0.011913176 = sum of:
    0.011913176 = product of:
      0.035739526 = sum of:
        0.035739526 = weight(_text_:29 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035739526 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 1.2014 16:40:41

0.0039353366 = product of:
  0.011806009 = sum of:
    0.011806009 = product of:
      0.035418026 = sum of:
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.003309216 = product of:
  0.009927647 = sum of:
    0.009927647 = product of:
      0.029782942 = sum of:
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.

0.003279447 = product of:
  0.009838341 = sum of:
    0.009838341 = product of:
      0.029515022 = sum of:
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4545, 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=4545)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1.11.2018 18:19:22