Search (239 results, page 1 of 12)

0.045062434 = product of:
  0.06759365 = sum of:
    0.057666 = product of:
      0.172998 = sum of:
        0.172998 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.172998 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36937886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.009927647 = product of:
      0.029782942 = sum of:
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.027774185 = product of:
  0.083322555 = sum of:
    0.083322555 = product of:
      0.124983825 = sum of:
        0.095468804 = weight(_text_:network in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095468804 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.492033 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.025872445 = product of:
  0.07761733 = sum of:
    0.07761733 = product of:
      0.11642599 = sum of:
        0.081007965 = weight(_text_:network in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081007965 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.024991414 = product of:
  0.07497424 = sum of:
    0.07497424 = product of:
      0.11246135 = sum of:
        0.08267841 = weight(_text_:network in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08267841 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Performance assessment is ubiquitous and crucial in people analytics. Scientific impact, particularly, plays a significant role in the academia. This paper attempts to understand researchers' career trajectories by considering the research community as a social network, where individuals build ties with each other via coauthorship. The resulting linkage facilitates information flow and affects researchers' future impact. Consequently, we systematically investigate the career trajectories of researchers with respect to research impact using the social capital theory as our theoretical foundation. Specifically, for early-stage and mid-career academics, we find that connections with prominent researchers associate with greater impact. Brokerage positions, in addition, are beneficial to a researcher's research impact in the long run. For senior researchers, however, the only social network feature that significantly affects their future impact is the reputation of their recently built ties. Finally, we build predictive models on future research impact which can be leveraged by both organizations and individuals. This paper provides empirical evidence for how social networks provide signals on researchers' career dynamics guided by social capital theory. Our findings have implications for individual researchers to strategically plan and promote their careers and for research institutions to better evaluate current as well as prospective employees.

Date

9. 3.2021 12:29:54

0.024991414 = product of:
  0.07497424 = sum of:
    0.07497424 = product of:
      0.11246135 = sum of:
        0.08267841 = weight(_text_:network in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08267841 = score(doc=1089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 1089, 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=1089)
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1089, 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=1089)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that the age-related digital divide prevents older adults from enhancing their quality of life. To bridge this gap and promote active aging, this study explores the interplay between social networks and older adults' use of information and communication technology (ICT). Using an action-oriented field research approach, we offered technical help (29 help sessions) to older adult participants recruited from western China. Then, we conducted content analysis to examine the obtained video, audio, and text data. Our results show that, first, different types of social networks significantly influence older adults' ICT use in terms of digital skills, engagement, and attitudes; however, these effects vary from person to person. In particular, our results highlight the crucial role of a stable and long-term supportive social network in learning and mastering ICT for older residents. Second, technical help facilitates the building and reinforcing of such a social network for the participants. Our study has strong implications in that policymakers can foster the digital inclusion of older people through supportive social networks.

0.024931874 = product of:
  0.07479562 = sum of:
    0.07479562 = product of:
      0.11219343 = sum of:
        0.08267841 = weight(_text_:network in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08267841 = score(doc=263,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When people experience major life changes, this often impacts their self-presentation, networks, and online behavior in substantial ways. To effectively study major life transitions and events, we surveyed a large U.S. sample (n = 554) to create the Major Life Events Taxonomy, a list of 121 life events in 12 categories. We then applied this taxonomy to a second large U.S. survey sample (n = 775) to understand on average how much social readjustment each event required, how likely each event was to be shared on social media with different types of audiences, and how much online network separation each involved. We found that social readjustment is positively correlated with sharing on social media, with both broad audiences and close ties as well as in online spaces separate from one's network of known ties. Some life transitions involve high levels of sharing with both separate audiences and broad audiences on social media, providing evidence for what previous research has called social media as social transition machinery. Researchers can use the Major Life Events Taxonomy to examine how people's life transition experiences relate to their behaviors, technology use, and health and well-being outcomes.

Date

10. 6.2021 19:22:47

0.024931874 = product of:
  0.07479562 = sum of:
    0.07479562 = product of:
      0.11219343 = sum of:
        0.08267841 = weight(_text_:network in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08267841 = score(doc=890,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 890, 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=890)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 890, 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=890)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge-enhanced short-text matching has been a significant task attracting much attention in recent years. However, the existing approaches cannot effectively balance effect and efficiency. Effective models usually consist of complex network structures leading to slow inference speed and the difficulties of applications in actual practice. In addition, most knowledge-enhanced models try to link the mentions in the text to the entities of the knowledge graphs-the difficulties of entity linking decrease the generalizability among different datasets. To address these problems, we propose a lightweight Semantic-Enhanced Interactive Network (SEIN) model for efficient short-text matching. Unlike most current research, SEIN employs an unsupervised method to select WordNet's most appropriate paraphrase description as the external semantic knowledge. It focuses on integrating semantic information and interactive information of text while simplifying the structure of other modules. We conduct intensive experiments on four real-world datasets, that is, Quora, Twitter-URL, SciTail, and SICK-E. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, SEIN achieves the best performance on most datasets. The experimental results proved that introducing external knowledge could effectively improve the performance of the short-text matching models. The research sheds light on the role of lightweight models in leveraging external knowledge to improve the effect of short-text matching.

Date

22. 1.2023 19:05:27

0.0230664 = product of:
  0.0691992 = sum of:
    0.0691992 = product of:
      0.20759758 = sum of:
        0.20759758 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20759758 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36937886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.02156037 = product of:
  0.06468111 = sum of:
    0.06468111 = product of:
      0.09702166 = sum of:
        0.06750664 = weight(_text_:network in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06750664 = score(doc=313,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.

0.020671291 = product of:
  0.062013872 = sum of:
    0.062013872 = product of:
      0.093020804 = sum of:
        0.057281278 = weight(_text_:network in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057281278 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
        0.035739526 = weight(_text_:29 in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035739526 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 39, 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=39)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Digital cultural heritage resources are widely available on the web through the digital libraries of heritage institutions. To address the difficulties of discoverability in cultural heritage, the common practice is metadata aggregation, where centralized efforts like Europeana facilitate discoverability by collecting the resources' metadata. We present the results of the linked data aggregation task conducted within the Europeana Common Culture project, which attempted an innovative approach to aggregation based on linked data made available by cultural heritage institutions. This task ran for one year with participation of eleven organizations, involving the three member roles of the Europeana network: data providers, intermediary aggregators, and the central aggregation hub, Europeana. We report on the challenges that were faced by data providers, the standards and specifications applied, and the resulting aggregated metadata.

Date

17.11.2020 11:29:00

0.020599846 = product of:
  0.061799537 = sum of:
    0.061799537 = product of:
      0.092699304 = sum of:
        0.057281278 = weight(_text_:network in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057281278 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.020599846 = product of:
  0.061799537 = sum of:
    0.061799537 = product of:
      0.092699304 = sum of:
        0.057281278 = weight(_text_:network in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057281278 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01999313 = product of:
  0.05997939 = sum of:
    0.05997939 = product of:
      0.08996908 = sum of:
        0.06614273 = weight(_text_:network in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06614273 = score(doc=595,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.34089047 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
        0.023826351 = weight(_text_:29 in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023826351 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Science maps are visual representations of the structure and dynamics of scholarly knowl­edge. They aim to show how fields, disciplines, journals, scientists, publications, and scientific terms relate to each other. Science mapping is the body of methods and techniques that have been developed for generating science maps. This entry is an introduction to science maps and science mapping. It focuses on the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues of science mapping, rather than on the mathematical formulation of science mapping techniques. After a brief history of science mapping, we describe the general procedure for building a science map, presenting the data sources and the methods to select, clean, and pre-process the data. Next, we examine in detail how the most common types of science maps, namely the citation-based and the term-based, are generated. Both are based on networks: the former on the network of publications connected by citations, the latter on the network of terms co-occurring in publications. We review the rationale behind these mapping approaches, as well as the techniques and methods to build the maps (from the extraction of the network to the visualization and enrichment of the map). We also present less-common types of science maps, including co-authorship networks, interlocking editorship networks, maps based on patents' data, and geographic maps of science. Moreover, we consider how time can be represented in science maps to investigate the dynamics of science. We also discuss some epistemological and sociological topics that can help in the interpretation, contextualization, and assessment of science maps. Then, we present some possible applications of science maps in science policy. In the conclusion, we point out why science mapping may be interesting for all the branches of meta-science, from knowl­edge organization to epistemology.

Date

27. 5.2022 18:19:29

0.019222 = product of:
  0.057666 = sum of:
    0.057666 = product of:
      0.172998 = sum of:
        0.172998 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.172998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36937886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.01716654 = product of:
  0.051499616 = sum of:
    0.051499616 = product of:
      0.07724942 = sum of:
        0.047734402 = weight(_text_:network in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047734402 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In a digital library, book search is one of the most important information services. However, with the rapid development of network technologies such as cloud computing, the server-side of a digital library is becoming more and more untrusted; thus, how to prevent the disclosure of users' book query privacy is causing people's increasingly extensive concern. In this article, we propose to construct a group of plausible fake queries for each user book query to cover up the sensitive subjects behind users' queries. First, we propose a basic framework for the privacy protection in book search, which requires no change to the book search algorithm running on the server-side, and no compromise to the accuracy of book search. Second, we present a privacy protection model for book search to formulate the constraints that ideal fake queries should satisfy, that is, (i) the feature similarity, which measures the confusion effect of fake queries on users' queries, and (ii) the privacy exposure, which measures the cover-up effect of fake queries on users' sensitive subjects. Third, we discuss the algorithm implementation for the privacy model. Finally, the effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated by theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation.

Date

6. 1.2020 17:22:25

0.01581279 = product of:
  0.04743837 = sum of:
    0.04743837 = product of:
      0.07115755 = sum of:
        0.035739526 = weight(_text_:29 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035739526 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 299, 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=299)
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 299, 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=299)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 6.2021 16:29:52

Source

o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 8(2021) Nr.2, S.1-22

0.01581279 = product of:
  0.04743837 = sum of:
    0.04743837 = product of:
      0.07115755 = sum of:
        0.035739526 = weight(_text_:29 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035739526 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
        0.035418026 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035418026 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29

0.014231651 = product of:
  0.042694952 = sum of:
    0.042694952 = product of:
      0.12808485 = sum of:
        0.12808485 = weight(_text_:network in 3811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12808485 = score(doc=3811,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.6601316 = fieldWeight in 3811, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3811)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many features of the U.S. political economy arise from the interactions between large political and economic institutions, and yet we know little about the nature of their interactions and the power distribution between these institutions. In this paper, we present a detailed analysis of networks of U.S.-based organizations, where edges represent three different kinds of relationships, namely owner-owned (ownerships), donor-donee (donations), and service provider-payee (transactions). Our findings suggest that in the ownerships network, the financial organizations form the core, and banking organizations hold strategic locations in the network. In the transactions network, the government organizations and agencies form the core, and defense-related organizations form the backbone. In contrast, with the donations network, no specific domain of organizations forms either the core or the backbone.

0.013177326 = product of:
  0.039531976 = sum of:
    0.039531976 = product of:
      0.059297964 = sum of:
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.013177326 = product of:
  0.039531976 = sum of:
    0.039531976 = product of:
      0.059297964 = sum of:
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
        0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029515022 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.

Date

20.11.2023 17:29:13