Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhang, C."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018) 0.01 
    0.009000885 = product of:
  0.027002655 = sum of:
    0.027002655 = product of:
      0.081007965 = sum of:
        0.081007965 = weight(_text_:network in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081007965 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
  2. Zhang, C.; Liu, X.; Xu, Y.(C.); Wang, Y.: Quality-structure index : a new metric to measure scientific journal influence (2011) 0.01 
    0.007500738 = product of:
  0.022502214 = sum of:
    0.022502214 = product of:
      0.06750664 = sum of:
        0.06750664 = weight(_text_:network in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06750664 = score(doc=4366,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    An innovative model to measure the influence among scientific journals is developed in this study. This model is based on the path analysis of a journal citation network, and its output is a journal influence matrix that describes the directed influence among all journals. Based on this model, an index of journals' overall influence, the quality-structure index (QSI), is derived. Journal ranking based on QSI has the advantage of accounting for both intrinsic journal quality and the structural position of a journal in a citation network. The QSI also integrates the characteristics of two prevailing streams of journal-assessment measures: those based on bibliometric statistics to approximate intrinsic journal quality, such as the Journal Impact Factor, and those using a journal's structural position based on the PageRank-type of algorithm, such as the Eigenfactor score. Empirical results support our finding that the new index is significantly closer to scholars' subjective perception of journal influence than are the two aforementioned measures. In addition, the journal influence matrix offers a new way to measure two-way influences between any two academic journals, hence establishing a theoretical basis for future scientometrics studies to investigate the knowledge flow within and across research disciplines.
  3. Zhang, C.; Zhao, H.; Chi, X.; Ma, S.: Information organization patterns from online users in a social network (2019) 0.01 
    0.0053038225 = product of:
  0.015911467 = sum of:
    0.015911467 = product of:
      0.047734402 = sum of:
        0.047734402 = weight(_text_:network in 5263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047734402 = score(doc=5263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 5263, 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=5263)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  4. Li, L.; He, D.; Zhang, C.; Geng, L.; Zhang, K.: Characterizing peer-judged answer quality on academic Q&A sites : a cross-disciplinary case study on ResearchGate (2018) 0.00 
    0.003279447 = product of:
  0.009838341 = sum of:
    0.009838341 = product of:
      0.029515022 = sum of:
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4637, 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=4637)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors