Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021371057 = product of:
  0.032056585 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=2648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.015425485 = product of:
      0.03085097 = sum of:
        0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03085097 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.0076815756 = product of:
  0.023044726 = sum of:
    0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023044726 = score(doc=152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We collected research articles from Retraction Watch database, Scopus, and a major retraction announcement by Springer, to identify emails used by authors. Authors' emails can be institutional emails and noninstitutional emails. Data suggest that retracted articles are more likely to use noninstitutional emails, but it is difficult to generalize. The study put some focus on authors from China.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 4277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=4277,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 4277, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4277)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This chapter reviews research and applications in statistical language modeling for information retrieval (IR), which has emerged within the past several years as a new probabilistic framework for describing information retrieval processes. Generally speaking, statistical language modeling, or more simply language modeling (LM), involves estimating a probability distribution that captures statistical regularities of natural language use. Applied to information retrieval, language modeling refers to the problem of estimating the likelihood that a query and a document could have been generated by the same language model, given the language model of the document either with or without a language model of the query. The roots of statistical language modeling date to the beginning of the twentieth century when Markov tried to model letter sequences in works of Russian literature (Manning & Schütze, 1999). Zipf (1929, 1932, 1949, 1965) studied the statistical properties of text and discovered that the frequency of works decays as a Power function of each works rank. However, it was Shannon's (1951) work that inspired later research in this area. In 1951, eager to explore the applications of his newly founded information theory to human language, Shannon used a prediction game involving n-grams to investigate the information content of English text. He evaluated n-gram models' performance by comparing their crossentropy an texts with the true entropy estimated using predictions made by human subjects. For many years, statistical language models have been used primarily for automatic speech recognition. Since 1980, when the first significant language model was proposed (Rosenfeld, 2000), statistical language modeling has become a fundamental component of speech recognition, machine translation, and spelling correction.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 1044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=1044,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 1044, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1044)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, we use innovative full-text citation analysis along with supervised topic modeling and network-analysis algorithms to enhance classical bibliometric analysis and publication/author/venue ranking. By utilizing citation contexts extracted from a large number of full-text publications, each citation or publication is represented by a probability distribution over a set of predefined topics, where each topic is labeled by an author-contributed keyword. We then used publication/citation topic distribution to generate a citation graph with vertex prior and edge transitioning probability distributions. The publication importance score for each given topic is calculated by PageRank with edge and vertex prior distributions. To evaluate this work, we sampled 104 topics (labeled with keywords) in review papers. The cited publications of each review paper are assumed to be "important publications" for the target topic (keyword), and we use these cited publications to validate our topic-ranking result and to compare different publication-ranking lists. Evaluation results show that full-text citation and publication content prior topic distribution, along with the classical PageRank algorithm can significantly enhance bibliometric analysis and scientific publication ranking performance, comparing with term frequency-inverted document frequency (tf-idf), language model, BM25, PageRank, and PageRank + language model (p < .001), for academic information retrieval (IR) systems.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 2714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=2714,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 2714, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2714)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Most existing search engines focus on document retrieval. However, information needs are certainly not limited to finding relevant documents. Instead, a user may want to find relevant entities such as persons and organizations. In this paper, we study the problem of related entity finding. Our goal is to rank entities based on their relevance to a structured query, which specifies an input entity, the type of related entities and the relation between the input and related entities. We first discuss a general probabilistic framework, derive six possible retrieval models to rank the related entities, and then compare these models both analytically and empirically. To further improve performance, we study the problem of feedback in the context of related entity finding. Specifically, we propose a mixture model based feedback method that can utilize the pseudo feedback entities to estimate an enriched model for the relation between the input and related entities. Experimental results over two standard TREC collections show that the derived relation generation model combined with a relation feedback method performs better than other models.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=3961,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Cognitive style has been identified to be significantly influential in deciding users' preferences of search engines. In particular, Witkin's field dependence/independence has been widely studied in the area of web searching. It has been suggested that this cognitive style has conceptual links with the holism/serialism. This study aims to investigate the differences between the field dependence/independence and holism/serialism. Design/methodology/approach - An empirical study was conducted with 120 students from a UK university. Riding's cognitive style analysis (CSA) and Ford's study preference questionnaire (SPQ) were used to identify the students' cognitive styles. A questionnaire was designed to identify users' preferences for the design of search engines. Data mining techniques were applied to analyse the data obtained from the empirical study. Findings - The results highlight three findings. First, a fundamental link is confirmed between the two cognitive styles. Second, the relationship between field dependent users and holists is suggested to be more prominent than that of field independent users and serialists. Third, the interface design preferences of field dependent and field independent users can be split more clearly than those of holists and serialists. Originality/value - The contributions of this study include a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between field dependence/independence and holists/serialists as well as proposing a novel methodology for data analyses.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=4366,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An innovative model to measure the influence among scientific journals is developed in this study. This model is based on the path analysis of a journal citation network, and its output is a journal influence matrix that describes the directed influence among all journals. Based on this model, an index of journals' overall influence, the quality-structure index (QSI), is derived. Journal ranking based on QSI has the advantage of accounting for both intrinsic journal quality and the structural position of a journal in a citation network. The QSI also integrates the characteristics of two prevailing streams of journal-assessment measures: those based on bibliometric statistics to approximate intrinsic journal quality, such as the Journal Impact Factor, and those using a journal's structural position based on the PageRank-type of algorithm, such as the Eigenfactor score. Empirical results support our finding that the new index is significantly closer to scholars' subjective perception of journal influence than are the two aforementioned measures. In addition, the journal influence matrix offers a new way to measure two-way influences between any two academic journals, hence establishing a theoretical basis for future scientometrics studies to investigate the knowledge flow within and across research disciplines.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=3018,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The citation relationships between publications, which are significant for assessing the importance of scholarly components within a network, have been used for various scientific applications. Missing citation metadata in scholarly databases, however, create problems for classical citation-based ranking algorithms and challenge the performance of citation-based retrieval systems. In this research, we utilize a two-step citation analysis method to investigate the importance of publications for which citation information is partially missing. First, we calculate the importance of the author and then use his importance to estimate the publication importance for some selected articles. To evaluate this method, we designed a simulation experiment-"random citation-missing"-to test the two-step citation analysis that we carried out with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). In this experiment, we simulated different scenarios in a large-scale scientific digital library, from high-quality citation data, to very poor quality data, The results show that a two-step citation analysis can effectively uncover the importance of publications in different situations. More importantly, we found that the optimized impact from the importance of an author (first step) is exponentially increased when the quality of citation decreases. The findings from this study can further enhance citation-based publication-ranking algorithms for real-world applications.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 4655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=4655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 4655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4655)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=74,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Digital libraries have become one of the most important Web services for information seeking. One of their main drawbacks is their global approach: In general, there is just one interface for all users. One of the key elements in improving user satisfaction in digital libraries is personalization. When considering personalizing factors, cognitive styles have been proved to be one of the relevant parameters that affect information seeking. This justifies the introduction of cognitive style as one of the parameters of a Web personalized service. Nevertheless, this approach has one major drawback: Each user has to run a time-consuming test that determines his or her cognitive style. In this article, we present a study of how different classification systems can be used to automatically identify the cognitive style of a user using the set of interactions with a digital library. These classification systems can be used to automatically personalize, from a cognitive-style point of view, the interaction of the digital library and each of its users.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=3464,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We propose a new hybrid clustering framework to incorporate text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. The framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. To improve the flexibility and the efficiency of processing large-scale data, we propose an information-based weighting scheme to leverage the effect of multiple data sources in hybrid clustering. Three different algorithms are extended by the proposed weighting scheme and they are employed on a large journal set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The clustering performance of the proposed algorithms is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation methods, and they were cross-compared with alternative methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed weighted hybrid clustering strategy is superior to other methods in clustering performance and efficiency. The proposed approach also provides a more refined structural mapping of journal sets, which is useful for monitoring and detecting new trends in different scientific fields.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=676)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The goal of this study was to propose novel cyberlearning resource-based scientific referential metadata for an assortment of publications and scientific topics, in order to enhance the learning experiences of students and scholars in a cyberinfrastructure-enabled learning environment. By using information retrieval and meta-search approaches, different types of referential metadata, such as related Wikipedia pages, data sets, source code, video lectures, presentation slides, and (online) tutorials for scientific publications and scientific topics will be automatically retrieved, associated, and ranked. In order to test our method of automatic cyberlearning referential metadata generation, we designed a user experiment to validate the quality of the metadata for each scientific keyword and publication and resource-ranking algorithm. Evaluation results show that the cyberlearning referential metadata retrieved via meta-search and statistical relevance ranking can help students better understand the essence of scientific keywords and publications.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=1012,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this study, we design an innovative method for answering students' or scholars' academic questions (for a specific scientific publication) by automatically recommending e-learning resources in a cyber-infrastructure-enabled learning environment to enhance the learning experiences of students and scholars. By using information retrieval and metasearch methodologies, different types of referential metadata (related Wikipedia pages, data sets, source code, video lectures, presentation slides, and online tutorials) for an assortment of publications and scientific topics will be automatically retrieved, associated, and ranked (via the language model and the inference network model) to provide easily understandable cyberlearning resources to answer students' questions. We also designed an experimental system to automatically answer students' questions for a specific academic publication and then evaluated the quality of the answers (the recommended resources) using mean reciprocal rank and normalized discounted cumulative gain. After examining preliminary evaluation results and student feedback, we found that cyberlearning resources can provide high-quality and straightforward answers for students' and scholars' questions concerning the content of academic publications.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=1035,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

User interest as a very dynamic information need is often ignored in most existing information retrieval systems. In this research, we present the results of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a real-time interest model (RIM) that attempts to identify the dynamic and changing query level interests regarding social media outputs. Unlike most existing ranking methods, our ranking approach targets calculation of the probability that user interest in the content of the document is subject to very dynamic user interest change. We describe 2 formulations of the model (real-time interest vector space and real-time interest language model) stemming from classical relevance ranking methods and develop a novel methodology for evaluating the performance of RIM using Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect (interest-based) relevance judgments on a daily basis. Our results show that the model usually, although not always, performs better than baseline results obtained from commercial web search engines. We identify factors that affect RIM performance and outline plans for future research.

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=1202,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

0.0055436995 = product of:
  0.016631098 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=4468,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In an increasingly global research landscape, it is important to identify the most prolific researchers in various institutions and their influence on the diffusion of knowledge. Knowledge diffusion within institutions is influenced by not just the status of individual researchers but also the collaborative culture that determines status. There are various methods to measure individual status, but few studies have compared them or explored the possible effects of different cultures on the status measures. In this article, we examine knowledge diffusion within science and technology-oriented research organizations. Using social network analysis metrics to measure individual status in large-scale coauthorship networks, we studied an individual's impact on the recombination of knowledge to produce innovation in nanotechnology. Data from the most productive and high-impact institutions in China (Chinese Academy of Sciences), Russia (Russian Academy of Sciences), and India (Indian Institutes of Technology) were used. We found that boundary-spanning individuals influenced knowledge diffusion in all countries. However, our results also indicate that cultural and institutional differences may influence knowledge diffusion.

0.0055436995 = product of:
  0.016631098 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=1253,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The scientific metadata model proposed in this article encompasses both classical descriptive metadata such as those defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DC) and the innovative structural and referential metadata properties that go beyond the classical model. Structural metadata capture the structural vocabulary in research publications; referential metadata include not only citations but also data about other types of scholarly output that is based on or related to the same publication. The article describes the structural, descriptive, and referential (SDR) elements of the metadata model and explains the underlying assumptions and justifications for each major component in the model. ScholarWiki, an experimental system developed as a proof of concept, was built over the wiki platform to allow user interaction with the metadata and the editing, deleting, and adding of metadata. By allowing and encouraging scholars (both as authors and as users) to participate in the knowledge and metadata editing and enhancing process, the larger community will benefit from more accurate and effective information retrieval. The ScholarWiki system utilizes machine-learning techniques that can automatically produce self-enhanced metadata by learning from the structural metadata that scholars contribute, which will add intelligence to enhance and update automatically the publication of metadata Wiki pages.

0.0055436995 = product of:
  0.016631098 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=847,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 847, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=847)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.

0.0048009846 = product of:
  0.014402954 = sum of:
    0.014402954 = weight(_text_:to in 2210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014402954 = score(doc=2210,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.17395693 = fieldWeight in 2210, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2210)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis mainly focuses on the study of one's opinions that express positive or negative sentiments. With the explosive growth of web documents, sentiment analysis is becoming a hot topic in both academic research and system design. Fine-grained sentiment analysis is traditionally solved as a 2-step strategy, which results in cascade errors. Although joint models, such as joint sentiment/topic and maximum entropy (MaxEnt)/latent Dirichlet allocation, are proposed to tackle this problem of sentiment analysis, they focus on the joint learning of both aspects and sentiments. Thus, they are not appropriate to solve the cascade errors for sentiment analysis at the sentence or subsentence level. In this article, we present a novel jointly fine-grained sentiment analysis framework at the subsentence level with Markov logic. First, we divide the task into 2 separate stages (subjectivity classification and polarity classification). Then, the 2 separate stages are processed, respectively, with different feature sets, which are implemented by local formulas in Markov logic. Finally, global formulas in Markov logic are adopted to realize the interactions of the 2 separate stages. The joint inference of subjectivity and polarity helps prevent cascade errors. Experiments on a Chinese sentiment data set manifest that our joint model brings significant improvements.

0.0048009846 = product of:
  0.014402954 = sum of:
    0.014402954 = weight(_text_:to in 650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014402954 = score(doc=650,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.17395693 = fieldWeight in 650, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=650)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Patient-generated online reviews are well-established as an important source of information for people to evaluate doctors' quality and improve health outcomes. However, how such reviews are generated in the first place is not well examined. This study examines a hitherto unexplored social driver of online review generation-doctors' presence on online health platforms, which results in the reviewers (i.e., patients) and the reviewees (i.e., doctors) coexisting in the same medium. Drawing on the Stimulus-Organism-Response theory as an overarching framework, we advance hypotheses about the impact of doctors' presence on their patients' review behaviors, including review volume, review effort, and emotional expression. To achieve causal identification, we conduct a quasi-experiment on a large online health platform and employ propensity score matching and difference-in-difference estimation. Our findings show that doctors' presence increases their patients' review volume. Furthermore, doctors' presence motivates their patients to exert greater effort and express more positive emotions in the review text. The results also show that the presence of doctors with higher professional titles has a stronger effect on review volume than the presence of doctors with lower professional titles. Our findings offer important implications both for research and practice.