-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.05
0.046909127 = product of:
0.093818255 = sum of:
0.016039573 = weight(_text_:information in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016039573 = score(doc=4188,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.07777868 = sum of:
0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032647457 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04513122 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:02:21
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245
-
Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014)
0.04
0.038194444 = product of:
0.07638889 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
0.06666744 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038683902 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 16:52:04
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1820-1833
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010)
0.02
0.022357035 = product of:
0.04471407 = sum of:
0.018330941 = weight(_text_:information in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018330941 = score(doc=3705,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
0.02638313 = product of:
0.05276626 = sum of:
0.05276626 = weight(_text_:technology in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05276626 = score(doc=3705,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.3722984 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1635-1643
-
Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010)
0.02
0.016767778 = product of:
0.033535555 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=3421,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
0.019787349 = product of:
0.039574698 = sum of:
0.039574698 = weight(_text_:technology in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039574698 = score(doc=3421,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011)
0.02
0.016546793 = product of:
0.033093587 = sum of:
0.02143378 = weight(_text_:information in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02143378 = score(doc=4143,freq=14.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.256578 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.185-204
-
Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011)
0.02
0.016546793 = product of:
0.033093587 = sum of:
0.02143378 = weight(_text_:information in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02143378 = score(doc=4608,freq=14.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.256578 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1933-1953
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009)
0.02
0.016181652 = product of:
0.032363303 = sum of:
0.016039573 = weight(_text_:information in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016039573 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
0.016323728 = product of:
0.032647457 = sum of:
0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032647457 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2107-2118
-
He, B.; Ding, Y.; Ni, C.: Mining enriched contextual information of scientific collaboration : a meso perspective (2011)
0.02
0.015751816 = product of:
0.031503633 = sum of:
0.019843826 = weight(_text_:information in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019843826 = score(doc=4444,freq=12.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Studying scientific collaboration using coauthorship networks has attracted much attention in recent years. How and in what context two authors collaborate remain among the major questions. Previous studies, however, have focused on either exploring the global topology of coauthorship networks (macro perspective) or ranking the impact of individual authors (micro perspective). Neither of them has provided information on the context of the collaboration between two specific authors, which may potentially imply rich socioeconomic, disciplinary, and institutional information on collaboration. Different from the macro perspective and micro perspective, this article proposes a novel method (meso perspective) to analyze scientific collaboration, in which a contextual subgraph is extracted as the unit of analysis. A contextual subgraph is defined as a small subgraph of a large-scale coauthorship network that captures relationship and context between two coauthors. This method is applied to the field of library and information science. Topological properties of all the subgraphs in four time spans are investigated, including size, average degree, clustering coefficient, and network centralization. Results show that contextual subgprahs capture useful contextual information on two authors' collaboration.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.831-845
-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2229-2243
-
Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=3290,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2388-2401
-
Ding, Y.: Topic-based PageRank on author cocitation networks (2011)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=4348,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4348,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Ranking authors is vital for identifying a researcher's impact and standing within a scientific field. There are many different ranking methods (e.g., citations, publications, h-index, PageRank, and weighted PageRank), but most of them are topic-independent. This paper proposes topic-dependent ranks based on the combination of a topic model and a weighted PageRank algorithm. The author-conference-topic (ACT) model was used to extract topic distribution of individual authors. Two ways for combining the ACT model with the PageRank algorithm are proposed: simple combination (I_PR) or using a topic distribution as a weighted vector for PageRank (PR_t). Information retrieval was chosen as the test field and representative authors for different topics at different time phases were identified. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze the ranking difference between I_PR and PR_t.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.449-466
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.467-477
-
Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=686,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.802-817
-
Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.: Citation content analysis (CCA) : a framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content (2013)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=975,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1490-1503
-
Li, D.; Luo, Z.; Ding, Y.; Tang, J.; Sun, G.G.-Z.; Dai, X.; Du, J.; Zhang, J.; Kong, S.: User-level microblogging recommendation incorporating social influence (2017)
0.01
0.012845755 = product of:
0.02569151 = sum of:
0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 3426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0140317045 = score(doc=3426,freq=6.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3426, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3426)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 3426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=3426,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3426, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3426)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- With the information overload of user-generated content in microblogging, users find it extremely challenging to browse and find valuable information in their first attempt. In this paper we propose a microblogging recommendation algorithm, TSI-MR (Topic-Level Social Influence-based Microblogging Recommendation), which can significantly improve users' microblogging experiences. The main innovation of this proposed algorithm is that we consider social influences and their indirect structural relationships, which are largely based on social status theory, from the topic level. The primary advantage of this approach is that it can build an accurate description of latent relationships between two users with weak connections, which can improve the performance of the model; furthermore, it can solve sparsity problems of training data to a certain extent. The realization of the model is mainly based on Factor Graph. We also applied a distributed strategy to further improve the efficiency of the model. Finally, we use data from Tencent Weibo, one of the most popular microblogging services in China, to evaluate our methods. The results show that incorporating social influence can improve microblogging performance considerably, and outperform the baseline methods.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.553-568
-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1313-1326
-
Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.352-371
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2643-2656
-
Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.72-86
-
Zhai, Y; Ding, Y.; Wang, F.: Measuring the diffusion of an innovation : a citation analysis (2018)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.368-379
