Search (3657 results, page 1 of 183)

0.15634362 = product of:
  0.20845817 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=2835,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.060886066 = weight(_text_:research in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060886066 = score(doc=2835,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.10736841 = sum of:
      0.0663457 = weight(_text_:network in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0663457 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041022714 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.14982328 = product of:
  0.19976437 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.060034476 = weight(_text_:research in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060034476 = score(doc=2593,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.11237476 = sum of:
      0.078189164 = weight(_text_:network in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.078189164 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Object

Research Papers in Economics
Social Science Research Network

0.139606 = product of:
  0.18614134 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=4191,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.12994736 = sum of:
      0.095761776 = weight(_text_:network in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.095761776 = score(doc=4191,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.270-283

0.12326858 = product of:
  0.16435811 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=4969,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
    0.066697344 = weight(_text_:research in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066697344 = score(doc=4969,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.46326676 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
    0.05745707 = product of:
      0.11491414 = sum of:
        0.11491414 = weight(_text_:network in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11491414 = score(doc=4969,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This study proposes an approach for visualizing knowledge structures that creates a "research-focused parallelship network," "keyword co-occurrence network," and a knowledge map to visualize Sci-Tech policy research structure. A total of 1,125 Sci-Tech policy-related papers (873 journal papers [78%], 205 conference papers [18%], and 47 review papers [4%]) have been retrieved from the Web of Science database for quantitative analysis and mapping. Different network and contour maps based on these 1,125 papers can be constructed by choosing different information as the main actor, such as the paper title, the institute, the country, or the author keywords, to reflect Sci-Tech policy research structures in micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, respectively. The quantitative way of exploring Sci-Tech policy research papers is investigated to unveil important or emerging Sci-Tech policy implications as well as to demonstrate the dynamics and visualization of the evolution of Sci-Tech policy research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.242-255

0.12046965 = product of:
  0.1606262 = sum of:
    0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 1116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038297202 = score(doc=1116,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 1116, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1116)
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 1116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=1116,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 1116, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1116)
    0.07740332 = product of:
      0.15480664 = sum of:
        0.15480664 = weight(_text_:network in 1116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15480664 = score(doc=1116,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.6888462 = fieldWeight in 1116, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Information technology (IT) outsourcing has become a widely accepted management strategy. As a consequence, a great deal of research on the IT outsourcing domain, covering a wide range of issues, has been conducted. This study investigates the IT outsourcing knowledge infrastructure from a network point of view. Triple helix indicators and social network analysis techniques are employed on 288 scholarly papers obtained from the Web of Science database using keywords related to IT outsourcing. The results reveal the key players in IT outsourcing research collaborations; their network characteristics, such as degree centrality; and the relationship of academia, industry, and government in terms of IT outsourcing knowledge production. This article also provides results-based implications.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2366-2378

0.1158065 = product of:
  0.15440866 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=743)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=743)
    0.11237476 = sum of:
      0.078189164 = weight(_text_:network in 743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.078189164 = score(doc=743,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 743, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=743)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 743, 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=743)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

We perform session analysis for our domain of people search within a professional social network. We find that the content-based method is appropriate to serve as a basis for the session identification in our domain. However, there remain some problems reported in previous research which degrade the identification performance (such as accuracy) of the content-based method. Therefore, in this article, we propose two important refinements to address these problems. We describe the underlying rationale of our refinements and then empirically show that the content-based method equipped with our refinements is able to achieve an excellent identification performance in our domain (such as 99.820% accuracy and 99.707% F-measure in our experiments). Next, because the time-based method has extremely low computation costs, which makes it suitable for many real-world applications, we investigate the feasibility of the time-based method in our domain by evaluating its identification performance based on our refined content-based method. Our experiments demonstrate that the performance of the time-based method is potentially acceptable to many real applications in our domain. Finally, we analyze several features of the identified sessions in our domain and compare them with the corresponding ones in general web search. The results illustrate the profession-oriented characteristics of our domain.

Date

19. 4.2013 20:31:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.929-950

0.114752635 = product of:
  0.15300351 = sum of:
    0.0473805 = weight(_text_:science in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473805 = score(doc=4940,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
    0.08293212 = product of:
      0.16586424 = sum of:
        0.16586424 = weight(_text_:network in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16586424 = score(doc=4940,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.73804945 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

We propose a minimum span clustering (MSC) method for clustering and visualizing complex networks using the interrelationship of network components. To demonstrate this method, it is applied to classify the social science network in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports. This method of network classification is shown to be efficient, with a processing time that is linear to network size. The classification results provide an in-depth view of the network structure at various scales of resolution. For the social science network, there are 4 resolution scales, including 294 batches of journals at the highest scale, 65 categories of journals at the second, 15 research groups at the third scale, and 3 knowledge domains at the lowest resolution. By comparing the relatedness of journals within clusters, we show that our clustering method gives a better classification of social science journals than ISI's heuristic approach and hierarchical clustering. In combination with the minimum spanning tree approach and multi-dimensional scaling, MSC is also used to investigate the general structure of the network and construct a map of the social science network for visualization.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2404-2413

0.113457486 = product of:
  0.15127665 = sum of:
    0.046423215 = weight(_text_:science in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046423215 = score(doc=56,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=56,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.0663457 = product of:
      0.1326914 = sum of:
        0.1326914 = weight(_text_:network in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326914 = score(doc=56,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.59043956 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Knowledge engineering and information mapping are two recent scientific disciplines in constant development where mathematics, linguistics, computer science, and information visualization converge. Their main focus is to discover and display new knowledge in large document databases. They have broad and innovative fields of application for strategic scouting in science and technology, knowledge management, business intelligence, and scientific and technological evaluation. This article presents a new method for mapping the strategic research network and illustrates its application to the strategic analysis of the knowledge domain "Spanish Research in Protected Areas for the Period 1981-2005." This strategic knowledge is displayed through a set of two-dimensional cartographic maps and three-dimensional images of two networks: the international network WoS_KWAJ (1981-2005) and the national network IEDCYT_KWAJ (1981-2005). These maps can be very useful in decision-making processes for science and technology policy.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.796-804

0.11337373 = product of:
  0.22674745 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
    0.20353584 = sum of:
      0.16251312 = weight(_text_:network in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16251312 = score(doc=2639,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.72313786 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041022714 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2639, 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=2639)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Online communities are becoming an important tool in the communication and participation processes in our society. However, the most widespread applications are difficult to use for people with disabilities, or may involve some risks if no previous training has been undertaken. This work describes a novel social network for cognitively disabled people along with a clustering-based method for modeling activity and socialization processes of its users in a noninvasive way. This closed social network is specifically designed for people with cognitive disabilities, called Guremintza, that provides the network administrators (e.g., social workers) with two types of reports: summary statistics of the network usage and behavior patterns discovered by a data mining process. Experiments made in an initial stage of the network show that the discovered patterns are meaningful to the social workers and they find them useful in monitoring the progress of the users.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:02:26

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.305-317

0.11100244 = product of:
  0.14800325 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 3590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=3590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 3590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3590)
    0.060886066 = weight(_text_:research in 3590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060886066 = score(doc=3590,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 3590, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3590)
    0.046913497 = product of:
      0.093826994 = sum of:
        0.093826994 = weight(_text_:network in 3590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093826994 = score(doc=3590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 3590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The past 2 decades have witnessed the emergence of information as a scientific discipline and the growth of information schools around the world. We analyzed the current state of the iSchool community in the U.S. with a special focus on the evolution of the community. We conducted our study from the perspectives of acquiring talents and producing research, including the analysis on iSchool faculty members' educational backgrounds, research topics, and the hiring network among iSchools. Applying text mining techniques and social network analysis to data from various sources, our research revealed how the iSchool community gradually built its own identity over time, including the growing number of faculty members who received their doctorates from the field that studies information, the deviation from computer science and library science, the rising emphasis on the intersection of information, technology, and people, and the increasing educational and research homogeneity as a community. These findings suggest that iSchools in the U.S. are evolving into a mature and independent discipline with a more established identity.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1266-1277

0.106428064 = product of:
  0.14190409 = sum of:
    0.046423215 = weight(_text_:science in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046423215 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.054458156 = weight(_text_:research in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054458156 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.041022714 = product of:
      0.08204543 = sum of:
        0.08204543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08204543 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 672

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.105502754 = product of:
  0.14067034 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=1091,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.06807269 = weight(_text_:research in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06807269 = score(doc=1091,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.47281966 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.039094582 = product of:
      0.078189164 = sum of:
        0.078189164 = weight(_text_:network in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078189164 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2045-2057

0.10346648 = product of:
  0.13795531 = sum of:
    0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 4623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038297202 = score(doc=4623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 4623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4623)
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 4623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=4623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 4623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4623)
    0.054732412 = product of:
      0.109464824 = sum of:
        0.109464824 = weight(_text_:network in 4623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109464824 = score(doc=4623,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.48708782 = fieldWeight in 4623, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Teenagers are among the most prolific users of social network sites (SNS). Emerging studies find that youth spend a considerable portion of their daily life interacting through social media. Subsequently, questions and controversies emerge about the effects SNS have on adolescent development. This review outlines the theoretical frameworks researchers have used to understand adolescents and SNS. It brings together work from disparate fields that examine the relationship between SNS and social capital, privacy, youth safety, psychological well-being, and educational achievement. These research strands speak to high-profile concerns and controversies that surround youth participation in these online communities, and offer ripe areas for future research.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1435-1445

0.102625474 = product of:
  0.13683397 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=2887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
    0.03930179 = weight(_text_:research in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03930179 = score(doc=2887,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
    0.078189164 = product of:
      0.15637833 = sum of:
        0.15637833 = weight(_text_:network in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15637833 = score(doc=2887,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.69583976 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

We investigated a topic-based navigation guidance system in the World Health Organization portal, compared the link connection network and the semantic connection network derived from the guidance system, analyzed the characteristics of the 2 networks from the perspective of the node centrality (in_closeness, out_closeness, betweenness, in_degree, and out_degree), and provided the suggestions to optimize and enhance the topic-based navigation guidance system. A mixed research method that combines the social network analysis method, clustering analysis method, and inferential analysis methods was used. The clustering analysis results of the link connection network were quite different from those of the semantic connection network. There were significant differences between the link connection network and the semantic network in terms of density and centrality. Inferential analysis results show that there were no strong correlations between the centrality of a node and its topic information characteristics. Suggestions for enhancing the navigation guidance system are discussed in detail. Future research directions, such as application of the same research method presented in this study to other similar public health portals, are also included.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1068-1088

0.10147244 = product of:
  0.13529658 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=3833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
    0.06807269 = weight(_text_:research in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06807269 = score(doc=3833,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.47281966 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
    0.047880888 = product of:
      0.095761776 = sum of:
        0.095761776 = weight(_text_:network in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095761776 = score(doc=3833,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Outstanding scholars have generally been regarded as having special influence that enables them to publish articles in top-tier journals and obtain higher levels of research funding. This study proposes that the social effect of an outstanding scholar, which is derived from the halo effect and the Matthew effect, is favorable for the expansion of the scholar's personal research network and will improve that scholar's future research accomplishments. Data for a total of 101 outstanding information systems scholars and 36 ordinary scholars were collected. The definition of an outstanding scholar is based on the quality and quantity of their publications. The results show that the social effect of the outstanding scholars is beneficial for the development of a research network, including 3 types of network structures. In addition, being highly connected with colleagues leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of quantity, while being connected with colleagues from different sub-fields leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of novelty. Additionally, this study found that the social effect of outstanding scholars is a double-edged sword, with both positive and negative impacts on research accomplishments. The findings contribute several theoretical and practical implications for future research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2449-2459

0.100999184 = product of:
  0.13466558 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 3126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=3126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3126)
    0.060034476 = weight(_text_:research in 3126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060034476 = score(doc=3126,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 3126, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3126)
    0.055288088 = product of:
      0.110576175 = sum of:
        0.110576175 = weight(_text_:network in 3126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110576175 = score(doc=3126,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.492033 = fieldWeight in 3126, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This study examines whether an institution's research resources affect its centrality and relationships in international collaboration among 606 astronomical institutions worldwide. The findings support our theoretical hypotheses that an institution's research resources are positively related to its central position in the network. Astronomical institutions with superior resources, such as being equipped with international observational facilities and having substantial research manpower, tend to have more foreign partners (high degree centrality) and play an influential role (high betweenness centrality) in the international collaboration network. An institution becomes more and more active in international collaborations as its research population expands. In terms of the relationship, which is captured by an actor institution's co-authorship preference for each partner in the network, the effect of research resources is not as significant as expected. We found that astronomical institutions are not necessarily preferentially co-authoring with partners that have better research resources. In addition, this study indicates that geographic closeness (or "geographic proximity") largely affects the occurrence of international collaboration. The investigated institutions apparently prefer partners from neighboring countries. This finding gives an indication of the phenomenon of "regional homophily" in the international collaboration network.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2489-2510

0.09877293 = product of:
  0.13169724 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
    0.08125656 = product of:
      0.16251312 = sum of:
        0.16251312 = weight(_text_:network in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16251312 = score(doc=3753,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.72313786 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This study explores the main determinants of social network adoption at the country level. We use the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework to investigate factors influencing social network adoption. The authors use cross-sectional data from 130 countries. The results indicate that social network adoption, at the country level, is positively influenced by the technological maturity, public readiness, and information and communication technology law sophistication. Technological, organizational, and environmental factors altogether accounted for 67% of variance in social network adoption. These findings provide a first insight into the usage of social network sites at the country level, as well as the main factors that influence public adoption. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1875-1885

0.0986307 = product of:
  0.13150759 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.08947368 = sum of:
      0.055288088 = weight(_text_:network in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055288088 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.098552585 = product of:
  0.13140345 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
    0.064179555 = weight(_text_:research in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064179555 = score(doc=744,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
    0.047880888 = product of:
      0.095761776 = sum of:
        0.095761776 = weight(_text_:network in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095761776 = score(doc=744,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been attracting more attention in recent decades. In this article, we compare the similarity between scientific research domains and quantifying the temporal similarities of domains. We narrowed our study to three research domains: information retrieval (IR), database (DB), and World Wide Web (W3), because the rapid development of the W3 domain substantially attracted research efforts from both IR and DB domains and introduced new research questions to these two areas. Most existing approaches either employed a content-based technique or a cocitation or coauthorship network-based technique to study the development trend of a research area. In this work, we proposed an effective way to quantify the similarities among different research domains by incorporating content similarity and coauthorship network similarity. Experimental results on DBLP (DataBase systems and Logic Programming) data related to IR, DB, and W3 domains showed that the W3 domain was getting closer to both IR and DB whereas the distance between IR and DB remained relatively constant. In addition, comparing to IR and W3 with the DB domain, the DB domain was more conservative and evolved relatively slower.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1065-1075

0.09789874 = product of:
  0.13053165 = sum of:
    0.046904307 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046904307 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=4466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
    0.03870166 = product of:
      0.07740332 = sum of:
        0.07740332 = weight(_text_:network in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07740332 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155