Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0501267 = product of:
  0.07519005 = sum of:
    0.04413878 = weight(_text_:social in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413878 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=398)
    0.03105127 = product of:
      0.06210254 = sum of:
        0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06210254 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual model of the field of informetrics. Specifically, the paper argues that informetrics comprises the study of entities in three dimensions: the social, documentary and epistemic dimensions containing respectively agents, documents, and concepts or cognitions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper outlines a conceptual model, drawing on earlier work by Kochen, Leydesdorff, Borgman and others. Subsequently, each dimension and interdimensional relation is analyzed and discussed. Findings - It is shown that not every study necessarily involves each of the three dimensions, but that the field as a whole cannot be reduced to one or two of them. Moreover, the dimensions should be kept separate but they are not completely independent. The paper discusses what kinds of relations exist between the dimensions. Special attention is given to the nature of the citation relation within this framework. The paper also considers the place of concepts like mapping, proximity and influence in the model. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual paper is a first step. Multi-relational networks may be a key instrument to further the study of the interplay between the three dimensions. Originality/value - The paper provides a framework to characterise informetric studies and makes the characteristics of the field explicit.

0.029425856 = product of:
  0.08827756 = sum of:
    0.08827756 = weight(_text_:social in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827756 = score(doc=646,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research is widely recognized as necessary to tackle some of the grand challenges facing humanity. It is generally believed that interdisciplinarity is becoming increasingly prevalent among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. However, little is known about the evolution of interdisciplinarity in the Social Sciences. Also, how interdisciplinarity and its various aspects evolve over time has seldom been closely quantified and delineated. This paper answers these questions by capturing the disciplinary diversity of the knowledge base of scientific publications in nine broad Social Sciences fields over 55 years. The analysis considers diversity as a whole and its three distinct aspects, namely variety, balance, and disparity. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions are also conducted to investigate whether such change, if any, can be found among research with similar characteristics. We find that learning widely and digging deeply have become one of the norms among researchers in Social Sciences. Fields acting as knowledge exporters or independent domains maintain a relatively stable homogeneity in their knowledge base while the knowledge base of importer disciplines evolves towards greater heterogeneity. However, the increase of interdisciplinarity is substantially smaller when controlling for several author and publication related variables.

0.020807223 = product of:
  0.06242167 = sum of:
    0.06242167 = weight(_text_:social in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06242167 = score(doc=11,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

0.014712928 = product of:
  0.04413878 = sum of:
    0.04413878 = weight(_text_:social in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413878 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.

0.014637709 = product of:
  0.043913126 = sum of:
    0.043913126 = product of:
      0.08782625 = sum of:
        0.08782625 = weight(_text_:networks in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08782625 = score(doc=1093,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Semantic Web has been criticized for not being semantic. This article examines the questions of why and how the Web of Data, expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF), has come to be known as the Semantic Web. Contrary to previous papers, we deliberately take a descriptive stance and do not start from preconceived ideas about the nature of semantics. Instead, we mainly base our analysis on early design documents of the (Semantic) Web. The main determining factor is shown to be link typing, coupled with the influence of online metadata. Both factors already were present in early web standards and drafts. Our findings indicate that the Semantic Web is directly linked to older artificial intelligence work, despite occasional claims to the contrary. Because of link typing, the Semantic Web can be considered an example of a semantic network. Originally network representations of the meaning of natural language utterances, semantic networks have eventually come to refer to any networks with typed (usually directed) links. We discuss possible causes for this shift and suggest that it may be due to confounding paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic relations.

0.011346727 = product of:
  0.03404018 = sum of:
    0.03404018 = product of:
      0.06808036 = sum of:
        0.06808036 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06808036 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22