Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Yan, B.; Luo, J.: Measuring technological distance for patent mapping (2017) 0.05
```
0.049418103 = product of:
  0.098836206 = sum of:
    0.098836206 = product of:
      0.19767241 = sum of:
        0.19767241 = weight(_text_:maps in 3351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19767241 = score(doc=3351,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.69412553 = fieldWeight in 3351, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Recent works in the information science literature have presented cases of using patent databases and patent classification information to construct network maps of technology fields, which aim to aid in competitive intelligence analysis and innovation decision making. Constructing such a patent network requires a proper measure of the distance between different classes of patents in the patent classification systems. Despite the existence of various distance measures in the literature, it is unclear how to consistently assess and compare them, and which ones to select for constructing patent technology network maps. This ambiguity has limited the development and applications of such technology maps. Herein, we propose to compare alternative distance measures and identify the superior ones by analyzing the differences and similarities in the structural properties of resulting patent network maps. Using United States patent data from 1976 to 2006 and the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, we compare 12 representative distance measures, which quantify interfield knowledge base proximity, field-crossing diversification likelihood or frequency of innovation agents, and co-occurrences of patent classes in the same patents. Our comparative analyses suggest the patent technology network maps based on normalized coreference and inventor diversification likelihood measures are the best representatives.
Yan, B.; Luo, J.: Filtering patent maps for visualization of diversification paths of inventors and organizations (2017) 0.03
```
0.03125475 = product of:
  0.0625095 = sum of:
    0.0625095 = product of:
      0.125019 = sum of:
        0.125019 = weight(_text_:maps in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.125019 = score(doc=3651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.43900353 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

In the information science literature, recent studies have used patent databases and patent classification information to construct network maps of patent technology classes. In such a patent technology map, almost all pairs of technology classes are connected, whereas most of the connections between them are extremely weak. This observation suggests the possibility of filtering the patent network map by removing weak links. However, removing links may reduce the explanatory power of the network on inventor or organization diversification. The network links may explain the patent portfolio diversification paths of inventors and inventing organizations. We measure the diversification explanatory power of the patent network map, and present a method to objectively choose an optimal tradeoff between explanatory power and removing weak links. We show that this method can remove a degree of arbitrariness compared with previous filtering methods based on arbitrary thresholds, and also identify previous filtering methods that created filters outside the optimal tradeoff. The filtered map aims to aid in network visualization analyses of the technological diversification of inventors, organizations, and other innovation agents, and potential foresight analysis. Such applications to a prolific inventor (Leonard Forbes) and company (Google) are demonstrated.