Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Chen, C."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Chen, C.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.; Hou, J.: ¬The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters : a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis (2010) 0.02 
    0.016914338 = product of:
  0.033828676 = sum of:
    0.033828676 = product of:
      0.06765735 = sum of:
        0.06765735 = weight(_text_:network in 3591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06765735 = score(doc=3591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 3591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis method is introduced for characterizing and interpreting the structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters. The method facilitates analytic and sense making tasks by integrating network visualization, spectral clustering, automatic cluster labeling, and text summarization. Cocitation networks are decomposed into cocitation clusters. The interpretation of these clusters is augmented by automatic cluster labeling and summarization. The method focuses on the interrelations between a cocitation cluster's members and their citers. The generic method is applied to a three-part analysis of the field of information science as defined by 12 journals published between 1996 and 2008: (a) a comparative author cocitation analysis (ACA), (b) a progressive ACA of a time series of cocitation networks, and (c) a progressive document cocitation analysis (DCA). Results show that the multiple-perspective method increases the interpretability and accountability of both ACA and DCA networks.
  2. Chen, C.; Hu, Z.; Milbank, J.; Schultz, T.: ¬A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature (2013) 0.01 
    0.014095282 = product of:
  0.028190564 = sum of:
    0.028190564 = product of:
      0.05638113 = sum of:
        0.05638113 = weight(_text_:network in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05638113 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Retracting published scientific articles is increasingly common. Retraction is a self-correction mechanism of the scientific community to maintain and safeguard the integrity of scientific literature. However, a retracted article may pose a profound and long-lasting threat to the credibility of the literature. New articles may unknowingly build their work on false claims made in retracted articles. Such dependencies on retracted articles may become implicit and indirect. Consequently, it becomes increasingly important to detect implicit and indirect threats. In this article, our aim is to raise the awareness of the potential threats of retracted articles even after their retraction and demonstrate a visual analytic study of retracted articles with reference to the rest of the literature and how their citations are influenced by their retraction. The context of highly cited retracted articles is visualized in terms of a co-citation network as well as the distribution of articles that have high-order citation dependencies on retracted articles. Survival analyses of time to retraction and postretraction citation are included. Sentences that explicitly cite retracted articles are extracted from full-text articles. Transitions of topics over time are depicted in topic-flow visualizations. We recommend that new visual analytic and science mapping tools should take retracted articles into account and facilitate tasks specifically related to the detection and monitoring of retracted articles.
  3. Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013) 0.01 
    0.008715361 = product of:
  0.017430723 = sum of:
    0.017430723 = product of:
      0.034861445 = sum of:
        0.034861445 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034861445 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18020853 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:50:00

Authors