Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  1. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.03 
    0.027024915 = product of:
  0.14413288 = sum of:
    0.10006697 = weight(_text_:author in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10006697 = score(doc=4188,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.015217344 = product of:
      0.030434689 = sum of:
        0.030434689 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030434689 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245
  2. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009) 0.02 
    0.022045365 = product of:
  0.11757528 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.030953024 = weight(_text_:26 in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030953024 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:12:08
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2107-2118
  3. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.01 
    0.013812379 = product of:
  0.11049903 = sum of:
    0.08577169 = weight(_text_:author in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08577169 = score(doc=3161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2229-2243
  4. Ding, Y.: Topic-based PageRank on author cocitation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.011844954 = product of:
  0.094759636 = sum of:
    0.07003229 = weight(_text_:author in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07003229 = score(doc=4348,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=4348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Ranking authors is vital for identifying a researcher's impact and standing within a scientific field. There are many different ranking methods (e.g., citations, publications, h-index, PageRank, and weighted PageRank), but most of them are topic-independent. This paper proposes topic-dependent ranks based on the combination of a topic model and a weighted PageRank algorithm. The author-conference-topic (ACT) model was used to extract topic distribution of individual authors. Two ways for combining the ACT model with the PageRank algorithm are proposed: simple combination (I_PR) or using a topic distribution as a weighted vector for PageRank (PR_t). Information retrieval was chosen as the test field and representative authors for different topics at different time phases were identified. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze the ranking difference between I_PR and PR_t.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.449-466
  5. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Discovering author impact : a PageRank perspective (2011) 0.01 
    0.008253384 = product of:
  0.13205415 = sum of:
    0.13205415 = weight(_text_:author in 2704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13205415 = score(doc=2704,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.8529049 = fieldWeight in 2704, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2704)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    This article provides an alternative perspective for measuring author impact by applying PageRank algorithm to a coauthorship network. A weighted PageRank algorithm considering citation and coauthorship network topology is proposed. We test this algorithm under different damping factors by evaluating author impact in the informetrics research community. In addition, we also compare this weighted PageRank with the h-index, citation, and program committee (PC) membership of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conferences. Findings show that this weighted PageRank algorithm provides reliable results in measuring author impact.
  6. Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.; Liang, X.; Gao, G.; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career (2018) 0.01 
    0.007922027 = product of:
  0.06337622 = sum of:
    0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04126692 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.
    Date
    20.12.2017 19:35:26
  7. Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.: Citation content analysis (CCA) : a framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content (2013) 0.01 
    0.006407313 = product of:
  0.051258504 = sum of:
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Date
    25. 6.2013 20:26:38
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1490-1503
  8. Ding, Y.: Visualization of intellectual structure in information retrieval : author cocitation analysis (1998) 0.01 
    0.0062541855 = product of:
  0.10006697 = sum of:
    0.10006697 = weight(_text_:author in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10006697 = score(doc=2792,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a cocitation analysis study from the international retrieval research field from 1987 to 1997. Data was taken from Social SciSearch, via Dialog, and the top 40 authors were submitted to author cocitation analysis to yield the intellectual structure of information retrieval. The resulting multidimensional scaling map revealed: identifiable author groups for information retrieval; location of these groups with respect to each other; extend of centrality and peripherality of authors within groups, proximities of authors within groups and across group boundaries; and the meaning of the axes of the map. Factor analysis was used to reveal the extent of the authors' research areas and statistical routines included: ALSCAL; clustering analysis and factor analysis
  9. Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011) 0.01 
    0.005339428 = product of:
  0.042715423 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Date
    27. 9.2011 13:26:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1849-1866
  10. Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018) 0.00 
    0.004377018 = product of:
  0.07003229 = sum of:
    0.07003229 = weight(_text_:author in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07003229 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
  11. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.C.; Foo, S.: Incorporating the results of co-word analyses to increase search variety for information retrieval (2000) 0.00 
    0.0033163952 = product of:
  0.053062323 = sum of:
    0.053062323 = weight(_text_:26 in 6328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053062323 = score(doc=6328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 6328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6328)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 26(2000) no.6, S.429-451
  12. Ding, Y.; Foo, S.: Ontology research and development : part 2 - a review of ontology mapping and evolving (2002) 0.00 
    0.0033163952 = product of:
  0.053062323 = sum of:
    0.053062323 = weight(_text_:26 in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053062323 = score(doc=3835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Date
    12. 8.2005 14:26:23
  13. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010) 0.00 
    0.0029141454 = product of:
  0.046626326 = sum of:
    0.046626326 = weight(_text_:american in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046626326 = score(doc=3705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.42616984 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1635-1643
  14. Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ahn, Y.-Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, D.: Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations (2020) 0.00 
    0.0025791824 = product of:
  0.04126692 = sum of:
    0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04126692 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.
  15. Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011) 0.00 
    0.002230678 = product of:
  0.035690848 = sum of:
    0.035690848 = weight(_text_:american in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035690848 = score(doc=4143,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.32621834 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.185-204
  16. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.00 
    0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2388-2401
  17. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.00 
    0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521
  18. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.00 
    0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=4349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.467-477
  19. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1313-1326
  20. Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013) 0.00 
    0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.802-817

Authors

Years

Themes