Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032002483 = product of:
  0.048003722 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=2648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = 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)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper proposes a diffusion model to measure the evolution of stakeholders' disaster perceptions by integrating a disaster message model, a stakeholder model, and a stakeholder memory model, which collectively describe the process of information flow. Simulation results show that the rate of forgetting has a significantly negative effect on stakeholders' perceptions and the incremental increase in the number of affected individuals has a positive effect on the maximum level of stakeholders' perceptions, but negative effect on the duration of stakeholders' perceptions. Additionally, a delay effect, a stagnation effect, and a cumulative effect exist in the evolution of stakeholders' perceptions. There is a spike at the beginning of the profile of stakeholders' perceptions in the Damped Exponential Model. An empirical test supports the validity of this model of stakeholders' disaster perceptions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:16:13

0.009940362 = product of:
  0.029821085 = sum of:
    0.029821085 = weight(_text_:on in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029821085 = score(doc=5016,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge withholding, which is defined as the likelihood that an individual devotes less than full effort to knowledge contribution, can be regarded as an emerging social deviance behavior for knowledge practice in online knowledge spaces. However, prior studies placed a great emphasis on proactive knowledge behaviors, such as knowledge sharing and contribution, but failed to consider the uniqueness of knowledge withholding. To capture the social-deviant nature of knowledge withholding and to better understand how people deal with counterproductive knowledge behaviors, this study develops a research model based on the secondary control perspective. Empirical analyses were conducted using the data collected from an online knowledge space. The results indicate that both predictive control and vicarious control exert a positive influence on knowledge withholding. This study also incorporates knowledge-withholding acceptability as a moderating variable of secondary control strategies. In particular, knowledge-withholding acceptability enhances the impact of predictive control, whereas it weakens the effect of vicarious control on knowledge withholding. This study concludes with a discussion of the key findings, and the implications for both research and practice.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special issue on social informatics of knowledge

0.009940362 = product of:
  0.029821085 = sum of:
    0.029821085 = weight(_text_:on in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029821085 = score(doc=5249,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study investigates motivations for self-archiving research items on academic social networking sites (ASNSs). A model of these motivations was developed based on two existing motivation models: motivation for self-archiving in academia and motivations for information sharing in social media. The proposed model is composed of 18 factors drawn from personal, social, professional, and external contexts, including enjoyment, personal/professional gain, reputation, learning, self-efficacy, altruism, reciprocity, trust, community interest, social engagement, publicity, accessibility, self-archiving culture, influence of external actors, credibility, system stability, copyright concerns, additional time, and effort. Two hundred and twenty-six ResearchGate users participated in the survey. Accessibility was the most highly rated factor, followed by altruism, reciprocity, trust, self-efficacy, reputation, publicity, and others. Personal, social, and professional factors were also highly rated, while external factors were rated relatively low. Motivations were correlated with one another, demonstrating that RG motivations for self-archiving could increase or decrease based on several factors in combination with motivations from the personal, social, professional, and external contexts. We believe the findings from this study can increase our understanding of users' motivations in sharing their research and provide useful implications for the development and improvement of ASNS services, thereby attracting more active users.

0.009940362 = product of:
  0.029821085 = sum of:
    0.029821085 = weight(_text_:on in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029821085 = score(doc=5360,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5360, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5360)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is increasingly important to build topic linkages between scientific publications and patents for the purpose of understanding the relationships between science and technology. Previous studies on the linkages mainly focus on the analysis of nonpatent references on the front page of patents, or the resulting citation-link networks, but with unsatisfactory performance. In the meanwhile, abundant mentioned entities in the scholarly articles and patents further complicate topic linkages. To deal with this situation, a novel statistical entity-topic model (named the CCorrLDA2 model), armed with the collapsed Gibbs sampling inference algorithm, is proposed to discover the hidden topics respectively from the academic articles and patents. In order to reduce the negative impact on topic similarity calculation, word tokens and entity mentions are grouped by the Brown clustering method. Then a topic linkages construction problem is transformed into the well-known optimal transportation problem after topic similarity is calculated on the basis of symmetrized Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence. Extensive experimental results indicate that our approach is feasible to build topic linkages with more superior performance than the counterparts.

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=1849,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study compares the range of disciplines of citing journal articles to determine how closely related journals assigned to the same Web of Science research area are. The frequency distribution of disciplines by citing articles provides a signature for a cited journal that permits it to be compared with other journals using similarity comparison techniques. As an initial exploration, citing discipline data for 40 high-impact-factor journals assigned to the "information science and library science" category of the Web of Science were compared across 5 time periods. Similarity relationships were determined using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to compare the outcomes produced by the proposed citing discipline and established cocitation methods. The maps and clustering outcomes reveal that a number of journals in allied areas of the information science and library science category may not be very closely related to each other or may not be appropriately situated in the category studied. The citing discipline similarity data resulted in similar outcomes with the cocitation data but with some notable differences. Because the citing discipline method relies on a citing perspective different from cocitations, it may provide a complementary way to compare journal similarity that is less labor intensive than cocitation analysis.

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Innovations transform our research traditions and become the driving force to advance individual, group, and social creativity. Meanwhile, interdisciplinary research is increasingly being promoted as a route to advance the complex challenges we face as a society. In this paper, we use Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) citation as a proxy context for the diffusion of an innovation. With an analysis of topic evolution, we divide the diffusion process into five stages: testing and evaluation, implementation, improvement, extending, and fading. Through a correlation analysis of topic and subject, we show the application of LDA in different subjects. We also reveal the cross-boundary diffusion between different subjects based on the analysis of the interdisciplinary studies. The results show that as LDA is transferred into different areas, the adoption of each subject is relatively adjacent to those with similar research interests. Our findings further support researchers' understanding of the impact formation of innovation.