Search (5308 results, page 1 of 266)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.19 
    0.1877567 = product of:
  0.28163505 = sum of:
    0.09174075 = weight(_text_:social in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09174075 = score(doc=918,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.1898943 = sum of:
      0.1490461 = weight(_text_:networks in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1490461 = score(doc=918,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.6271047 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040848214 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = 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)
    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
  2. Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015) 0.18 
    0.18423879 = product of:
  0.2763582 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
    0.22339164 = sum of:
      0.18254343 = weight(_text_:networks in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18254343 = score(doc=2586,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.7680432 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040848214 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed. Findings - Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks. Originality/value - This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Hu, D.; Kaza, S.; Chen, H.: Identifying significant facilitators of dark network evolution (2009) 0.18 
    0.18106869 = product of:
  0.27160302 = sum of:
    0.09869733 = weight(_text_:social in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09869733 = score(doc=2753,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.49257156 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
    0.17290568 = sum of:
      0.1388655 = weight(_text_:networks in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1388655 = score(doc=2753,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.5842703 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
      0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03404018 = score(doc=2753,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2753, 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=2753)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Social networks evolve over time with the addition and removal of nodes and links to survive and thrive in their environments. Previous studies have shown that the link-formation process in such networks is influenced by a set of facilitators. However, there have been few empirical evaluations to determine the important facilitators. In a research partnership with law enforcement agencies, we used dynamic social-network analysis methods to examine several plausible facilitators of co-offending relationships in a large-scale narcotics network consisting of individuals and vehicles. Multivariate Cox regression and a two-proportion z-test on cyclic and focal closures of the network showed that mutual acquaintance and vehicle affiliations were significant facilitators for the network under study. We also found that homophily with respect to age, race, and gender were not good predictors of future link formation in these networks. Moreover, we examined the social causes and policy implications for the significance and insignificance of various facilitators including common jails on future co-offending. These findings provide important insights into the link-formation processes and the resilience of social networks. In addition, they can be used to aid in the prediction of future links. The methods described can also help in understanding the driving forces behind the formation and evolution of social networks facilitated by mobile and Web technologies.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:50:30
  4. Sonnenwald, D.H.: Evolving perspectives of human information behaviour : contexts, situations, social networks and information horizons (1999) 0.17 
    0.17444447 = product of:
  0.2616667 = sum of:
    0.09174075 = weight(_text_:social in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09174075 = score(doc=293,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 293, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=293)
    0.16992593 = sum of:
      0.12907772 = weight(_text_:networks in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12907772 = score(doc=293,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.5430886 = fieldWeight in 293, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=293)
      0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040848214 = score(doc=293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 293, 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=293)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper presents an evolving framework for human information behaviour, including information exploration, seeking, filtering, use and dissemination. It is based on empirical studies of human information behaviour in a variety of settings (Iivonen & Sonnenwald, 1998; Sonnenwald, 1993, 1995, 1996) and theories from a variety of research traditions, including information science, communication, sociology and psychology that inform our understanding of human information behaviour. I begin formulating the framework by discussing fundamental concepts, such as context, situation and social networks. Building on these concepts, I propose a series of propositions that strive to elucidate the framework. Key ideas in the framework include the introduction of the role of social networks in information exploration, and the concept of an `information horizon' in which we can act to explore information.
    Date
    22. 3.2002 9:46:09
  5. 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) 0.16 
    0.15700665 = product of:
  0.23550996 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
    0.18254343 = product of:
      0.36508685 = sum of:
        0.36508685 = weight(_text_:networks in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36508685 = score(doc=274,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            1.5360864 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
  6. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.16 
    0.15587203 = product of:
  0.23380804 = sum of:
    0.11843679 = weight(_text_:social in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11843679 = score(doc=4460,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.11537126 = sum of:
      0.07452305 = weight(_text_:networks in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07452305 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040848214 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  7. Haimson, O.L.; Carter, A.J.; Corvite, S.; Wheeler, B.; Wang, L.; Liu, T.; Lige, A.: ¬The major life events taxonomy : social readjustment, social media information sharing, and online network separation during times of life transition (2021) 0.15 
    0.15237272 = product of:
  0.22855908 = sum of:
    0.13241635 = weight(_text_:social in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13241635 = score(doc=263,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
    0.096142724 = sum of:
      0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06210254 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
      0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03404018 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = 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)
    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
  8. Woelfel, J.: Cognitive processes and communication networks : a general theory (1993) 0.14 
    0.14234304 = product of:
  0.21351455 = sum of:
    0.107030876 = weight(_text_:social in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107030876 = score(doc=832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.53416204 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
    0.106483676 = product of:
      0.21296735 = sum of:
        0.21296735 = weight(_text_:networks in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21296735 = score(doc=832,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.89605045 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Part of an issue devoted to communication networks and network analysis. Demonstrates the applicability of the network concept for the description of both cognitive and social processes. Networks are a set of interrelated nodes, classified according to the characteristics of the nodes and the relationships among them. Historically they have been categorized as social networks, when the nodes were specified as individuals or higher level systems; cognitve or neural networks, when the nodes were considers words; symbols of any other representation; and communication networks, when the realtionships among the nodes involved the transfer of information rather than affect, power or social prestige. Attempts to intergarte these perspectives
  9. Haythornthwaite, C.: Social networks and information transfer (2009) 0.14 
    0.14064471 = product of:
  0.21096706 = sum of:
    0.09987467 = weight(_text_:social in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09987467 = score(doc=3877,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
    0.1110924 = product of:
      0.2221848 = sum of:
        0.2221848 = weight(_text_:networks in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2221848 = score(doc=3877,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.9348325 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Information exchange, transfer and flow can often depend on the motivations of individuals who share that information. This in turn depends on the relationships they maintain with others, and the networks of information sharing resulting from their interconnections. This entry describes the attributes of social networks that facilitate or inhibit the exchange of information, how to discover these networks, and how different configurations of networks can constrain or facilitate information transfer.
  10. Jordan, K.: Separating and merging professional and personal selves online : the structure and process that shape academics' ego-networks on academic social networking sites and Twitter (2019) 0.13 
    0.13450406 = product of:
  0.20175609 = sum of:
    0.11843679 = weight(_text_:social in 5324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11843679 = score(doc=5324,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 5324, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5324)
    0.0833193 = product of:
      0.1666386 = sum of:
        0.1666386 = weight(_text_:networks in 5324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1666386 = score(doc=5324,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.70112437 = fieldWeight in 5324, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Academic social networking sites seek to bring the benefits of online networking to an academic audience. The ability to make connections to others is a defining characteristic of the sites, but what types of networks are formed, and what are the implications of the structures? This study addressed that question through mixed methods social network analysis, focusing on Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Twitter, as three of the main sites used by academics in their professional lives. The structure of academics' ego-networks on social networking sites differs by platform. Networks on academic sites were smaller and more highly clustered, whereas Twitter networks were larger and more diffuse. Institutions and research interests define communities on academic sites, compared with research topics and personal interests on Twitter. The network structures reflect differences in how academics conceptualize different sites and have implications in relation to fostering social capital and research impact.
  11. Johnson, C.A.: Social capital and the search for information : examining the role of social capital in information seeking behavior in Mongolia (2007) 0.13 
    0.13344947 = product of:
  0.20017418 = sum of:
    0.1463918 = weight(_text_:social in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1463918 = score(doc=288,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.73060167 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
    0.05378238 = product of:
      0.10756476 = sum of:
        0.10756476 = weight(_text_:networks in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10756476 = score(doc=288,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The process of finding information to address problems that arise in everyday life situations is complex. Individuals are influenced by many factors when the information need occurs, including their social, psychological, political, economic, physical, and work environments. Research focusing on the social factors affecting information has stressed the importance of interpersonal communication and the quality of social networks in facilitating access to information. The study reported in this article investigates the role of social networks in affecting access to information and, more particularly, how social capital or the resources made available to individuals through their social networks influence their success in finding the information they need. Questionnaires were administered in a face-to-face format to a random sample of 320 residents of the city of Ulaan-baatar, Mongolia. The theoretical framework for the study is Lin's theory of social capital whose main proposition is that the ability of people to achieve desired outcomes is positively associated with social capital. The findings indicate that social capital did have a significant effect on information behavior, particularly on the choice of source, which in turn had a direct influence on successful search outcomes.
  12. Fallis, D.: Social epistemology and information science (2006) 0.13 
    0.13047227 = product of:
  0.1957084 = sum of:
    0.14124411 = weight(_text_:social in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14124411 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
    0.054464288 = product of:
      0.108928576 = sum of:
        0.108928576 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108928576 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:22:28
  13. Foskett, D.J.: Classification and indexing in the social sciences (1970) 0.13 
    0.13047227 = product of:
  0.1957084 = sum of:
    0.14124411 = weight(_text_:social in 4957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14124411 = score(doc=4957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 4957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4957)
    0.054464288 = product of:
      0.108928576 = sum of:
        0.108928576 = weight(_text_:22 in 4957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108928576 = score(doc=4957,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4957, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Aslib proceedings. 22(1970), S.90-101
  14. Cronin, J.: Social influences on quantum mechanics? : I (2001) 0.13 
    0.12710682 = product of:
  0.19066021 = sum of:
    0.149812 = weight(_text_:social in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.149812 = score(doc=1994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.747671 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
    0.040848214 = product of:
      0.08169643 = sum of:
        0.08169643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08169643 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Footnote
    Erwiderung auf: Graham, L.R.: Do mathematical equations display social attributes? in: Mathematical intelligencer 22(2000) no.3, S.31-36
  15. Lipschütz-Yevick, M.: Social influences on quantum mechanics? : II (2001) 0.13 
    0.12710682 = product of:
  0.19066021 = sum of:
    0.149812 = weight(_text_:social in 6886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.149812 = score(doc=6886,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.747671 = fieldWeight in 6886, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6886)
    0.040848214 = product of:
      0.08169643 = sum of:
        0.08169643 = weight(_text_:22 in 6886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08169643 = score(doc=6886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Footnote
    Erwiderung auf: Graham, L.R.: Do mathematical equations display social attributes? in: Mathematical intelligencer 22(2000) no.3, S.31-36
  16. Andrew Keenan, A.; Shiri, A.: Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites (2009) 0.13 
    0.12686995 = product of:
  0.19030492 = sum of:
    0.1463918 = weight(_text_:social in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1463918 = score(doc=3630,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.73060167 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
    0.043913126 = product of:
      0.08782625 = sum of:
        0.08782625 = weight(_text_:networks in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08782625 = score(doc=3630,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 3630, 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=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Social websites have become a major medium for social interaction. From Facebook to MySpace to emergent sites like Twitter, social websites are increasing exponentially in user numbers and unique visits every day. How do these websites encourage sociability? What features or design practices enable users to socialize with other users? The purpose of this paper is to explore sociability on the social web and details how different social websites encourage their users to interact. Design/methodology/approach - Four social websites (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter) were examined from a user study perspective. After thoroughly participating on the websites, a series of observations were recorded from each experience. These experiences were then compared to understand the different approaches of each website. Findings - Social websites use a number of different approaches to encourage sociability amongst their users. Facebook promotes privacy and representing "real world" networks in web environment, while MySpace promotes publicity and representing both real world and virtual networks in a web environment. Niche websites like LinkedIn and Twitter focus on more specific aspects of community and technology, respectively. Originality/value - A comparison of different models of sociability does not yet exist. This study focuses specifically on what makes social websites "social."
  17. Goggins, S.P.; Mascaro, C.; Valetto, G.: Group informatics : a methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research (2013) 0.13 
    0.1268515 = product of:
  0.19027725 = sum of:
    0.074906 = weight(_text_:social in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074906 = score(doc=665,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
    0.11537126 = sum of:
      0.07452305 = weight(_text_:networks in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07452305 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040848214 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 665, 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=665)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    We present a methodological approach, called Group Informatics, for understanding the social connections that are created between members of technologically mediated groups. Our methodological approach supports focused thinking about how online groups differ from each other, and diverge from their face-to-face counterparts. Group Informatics is grounded in 5 years of empirical studies of technologically mediated groups in online learning, software engineering, online political discourse, crisis informatics, and other domains. We describe the Group Informatics model and the related, 2-phase methodological approach in detail. Phase one of the methodological approach centers on a set of guiding research questions aimed at directing the application of Group Informatics to new corpora of integrated electronic trace data and qualitative research data. Phase 2 of the methodological approach is a systematic set of steps for transforming electronic trace data into weighted social networks.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:36:45
  18. Agosto, D.E.; Abbas, J.; Naughton, R.: Relationships and social rules : teens' social network and other ICT selection practices (2012) 0.12 
    0.1241325 = product of:
  0.18619874 = sum of:
    0.13241635 = weight(_text_:social in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13241635 = score(doc=252,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.05378238 = product of:
      0.10756476 = sum of:
        0.10756476 = weight(_text_:networks in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10756476 = score(doc=252,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The issue of how teens choose social networks and information communication technologies (ICT's) for personal communication is complex. This study focused on describing how U.S. teens from a highly technological suburban high school select ICT's for personal communication purposes. Two research questions guided the study: (a) What factors influence high school seniors' selection of online social networks and other ICT's for everyday communication? (b) How can social network theory (SNT) help to explain how teens select online social networks and other ICT's for everyday communication purposes? Using focus groups, a purposive sample of 45 teens were asked to discuss (a) their preferred methods for communicating with friends and family and why, (b) the reasons why they chose to engage (or not to engage) in online social networking, (c) how they selected ICT's for social networking and other communication purposes, and (d) how they decided whom to accept as online "friends." Findings indicated that many factors influenced participants' ICT selection practices including six major categories of selection factors: relationship factors, information/communication factors, social factors, systems factors, self-protection factors, and recipient factors. SNT was also helpful in explaining how "friendship" was a major determining factor in their communication media and platform choices.
  19. Nguyen, T.T.; Tho Thanh Quan, T.T.; Tuoi Thi Phan, T.T.: Sentiment search : an emerging trend on social media monitoring systems (2014) 0.12 
    0.12294686 = product of:
  0.18442029 = sum of:
    0.08827756 = weight(_text_:social in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827756 = score(doc=1625,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 1625, 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=1625)
    0.096142724 = sum of:
      0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06210254 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1625, 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=1625)
      0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03404018 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1625, 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=1625)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss sentiment search, which not only retrieves data related to submitted keywords but also identifies sentiment opinion implied in the retrieved data and the subject targeted by this opinion. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose a retrieval framework known as Cross-Domain Sentiment Search (CSS), which combines the usage of domain ontologies with specific linguistic rules to handle sentiment terms in textual data. The CSS framework also supports incrementally enriching domain ontologies when applied in new domains. Findings - The authors found that domain ontologies are extremely helpful when CSS is applied in specific domains. In the meantime, the embedded linguistic rules make CSS achieve better performance as compared to data mining techniques. Research limitations/implications - The approach has been initially applied in a real social monitoring system of a professional IT company. Thus, it is proved to be able to handle real data acquired from social media channels such as electronic newspapers or social networks. Originality/value - The authors have placed aspect-based sentiment analysis in the context of semantic search and introduced the CSS framework for the whole sentiment search process. The formal definitions of Sentiment Ontology and aspect-based sentiment analysis are also presented. This distinguishes the work from other related works.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Assis, J.; Aparecida Moura, M.: Consensus analysis on the development of meta-languages: : a study of the semantic domain of biotechnology (2014) 0.12 
    0.12285873 = product of:
  0.1842881 = sum of:
    0.06242167 = weight(_text_:social in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06242167 = score(doc=1446,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 1446, 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=1446)
    0.121866435 = sum of:
      0.08782625 = weight(_text_:networks in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08782625 = score(doc=1446,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1446, 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=1446)
      0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03404018 = score(doc=1446,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1446, 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=1446)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Knowledge representation and organization and their respective tools and methodologies are based on a model of production and diffusion of knowledge that is currently promoted by diversifying ways of creating, sharing and appropriating knowledge. This study investigated the dimensions of formation and expression of consensus within Biotechnology in order to analyze the possibilities and limits of Consensus Analysis as a methodological tool applied to the knowledge organization. The research explored co-authorship networks and semantic networks derived from the scientific production of the domain. The methodology was established by triangulating method and through theories of Social Network Analysis, Consensus Analysis and the semiotic approach. The freelisting technique was employed for the collection and analysis of concepts belonging to the domain. There is a relationship between the centrality of social actors and thematic centrality. The dynamics of the formation and expression of consensus in the digital context can reveal the configuration of a type of warranty that has not been explored in the literature of knowledge organization yet.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • el 133
  • b 35
  • p 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications