Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.028437529 = product of:
  0.08531258 = sum of:
    0.050336715 = weight(_text_:applications in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050336715 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=1521,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1820-1833

0.027906 = product of:
  0.083718 = sum of:
    0.03355781 = weight(_text_:applications in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03355781 = score(doc=4402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19456528 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
    0.017456459 = weight(_text_:of in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017456459 = score(doc=4402,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=4402,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.
Support for evolving ontologies is required in almost all situations where ontologies are used in real-world applications. In those cases, ontologies are often developed by several persons and will continue to evolve over time, because of changes in the real world, adaptations to different tasks, or alignments to other ontologies. To prevent that such changes will invalidate existing usage, a change management methodology is needed. This involves advanced versioning methods for the development and the maintenance of ontologies, but also configuration management, that takes care of the identification, relations and interpretation of ontology versions. All these aspects come together in integrated ontology library systems. When the number of different ontologies is increasing, the task of storing, maintaining and re-organizing them to secure the successful re-use of ontologies is challenging. Ontology library systems can help in the grouping and reorganizing ontologies for further re-use, integration, maintenance, mapping and versioning. Basically, a library system offers various functions for managing, adapting and standardizing groups of ontologies. Such integrated systems are a requirement for the Semantic Web to grow further and scale up. In this chapter, we describe a number of results with respect to the above mentioned areas. We start with a description of the alignment task and show a meta-ontology that is developed to specify the mappings. Then, we discuss the problems that are caused by evolving ontologies and describe two important elements of a change management methodology. Finally, in Section 4.4 we survey existing library systems and formulate a wish-list of features of an ontology library system.

0.012267706 = product of:
  0.05520468 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=4970,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
    0.03540283 = weight(_text_:systems in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03540283 = score(doc=4970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article investigates the dynamic features of social tagging vocabularies in Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube from 2003 to 2008. Three algorithms are designed to study the macro- and micro-tag growth as well as the dynamics of taggers' activities, respectively. Moreover, we propose a Tagger Tag Resource Latent Dirichlet Allocation (TTR-LDA) model to explore the evolution of topics emerging from those social vocabularies. Our results show that (a) at the macro level, tag growth in all the three tagging systems obeys power law distribution with exponents lower than 1; at the micro level, the tag growth of popular resources in all three tagging systems follows a similar power law distribution; (b) the exponents of tag growth vary in different evolving stages of resources; (c) the growth of number of taggers associated with different popular resources presents a feature of convergence over time; (d) the active level of taggers has a positive correlation with the macro-tag growth of different tagging systems; and (e) some topics evolve into several subtopics over time while others experience relatively stable stages in which their contents do not change much, and certain groups of taggers continue their interests in them.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.139-162

0.011673733 = product of:
  0.052531797 = sum of:
    0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041947264 = score(doc=2345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2345,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Text mining has been widely used in multiple types of user-generated data to infer user opinion, but its application to microblogging is difficult because text messages are short and noisy, providing limited information about user opinion. Given that microblogging users communicate with each other to form a social network, we hypothesize that user opinion is influenced by its neighbors in the network. In this paper, we infer user opinion on a topic by combining two factors: the user's historical opinion about relevant topics and opinion influence from his/her neighbors. We thus build a topic-level opinion influence model (TOIM) by integrating both topic factor and opinion influence factor into a unified probabilistic model. We evaluate our model in one of the largest microblogging sites in China, Tencent Weibo, and the experiments show that TOIM outperforms baseline methods in opinion inference accuracy. Moreover, incorporating indirect influence further improves inference recall and f1-measure. Finally, we demonstrate some useful applications of TOIM in analyzing users' behaviors in Tencent Weibo.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2657-2673

0.010539032 = product of:
  0.047425643 = sum of:
    0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022897845 = score(doc=3421,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521

0.009750018 = product of:
  0.04387508 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=4759,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=4759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The presence of social networks in complex systems has made networks and community structure a focal point of study in many domains. Previous studies have focused on the structural emergence and growth of communities and on the topics displayed within the network. However, few scholars have closely examined the relationship between the thematic and structural properties of networks. Therefore, this article proposes the Tagger Tag Resource-Latent Dirichlet Allocation-Community model (TTR-LDA-Community model), which combines the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model with the Girvan-Newman community detection algorithm through an inference mechanism. Using social tagging data from Delicious, this article demonstrates the clustering of active taggers into communities, the topic distributions within communities, and the ranking of taggers, tags, and resources within these communities. The data analysis evaluates patterns in community structure and topical affiliations diachronically. The article evaluates the effectiveness of community detection and the inference mechanism embedded in the model and finds that the TTR-LDA-Community model outperforms other traditional models in tag prediction. This has implications for scholars in domains interested in community detection, profiling, and recommender systems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1849-1866

0.0069801607 = product of:
  0.031410724 = sum of:
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=4188,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.0026033178 = product of:
  0.023429861 = sum of:
    0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023429861 = score(doc=2792,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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

0.002544205 = product of:
  0.022897845 = sum of:
    0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022897845 = score(doc=686,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.802-817

0.0024947983 = product of:
  0.022453185 = sum of:
    0.022453185 = weight(_text_:of in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022453185 = score(doc=4608,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1933-1953

0.0023521183 = product of:
  0.021169065 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=3995,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

State of the art review of models of the process of scholarly communication and the role that bibliometrics can play in studying this process

0.0023284785 = product of:
  0.020956306 = sum of:
    0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 3808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020956306 = score(doc=3808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3808)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of information science. 28(2002) no.2, S.123-136

0.0023284785 = product of:
  0.020956306 = sum of:
    0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020956306 = score(doc=4152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.?, S.377-384

0.002277429 = product of:
  0.02049686 = sum of:
    0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02049686 = score(doc=663,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1489-1505

0.0022314154 = product of:
  0.020082738 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=975,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1490-1503

0.0022314154 = product of:
  0.020082738 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=4116,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.368-379

0.0021169065 = product of:
  0.019052157 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=162,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Diffusion channels are critical to determining the adoption scale, which leads to the ultimate impact of an innovation. The aim of this study is to develop an integrative understanding of the impact of two diffusion channels (i.e., broadcasting vs. virality) on innovation adoption. Using citations of a series of classic algorithms and the time series of co-authorship as the footprints of their diffusion trajectories, we propose a novel method to analyze the intertwining relationships between broadcasting and virality in the innovation diffusion process. Our findings show that broadcasting and virality have similar diffusion power, but play different roles across diffusion stages. Broadcasting is more powerful in the early stages but may be gradually caught up or even surpassed by virality in the later period. Meanwhile, diffusion speed in virality is significantly faster than broadcasting and members from virality channels tend to adopt the same innovation repetitively.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.4, S.403-416

0.0021037988 = product of:
  0.018934188 = sum of:
    0.018934188 = weight(_text_:of in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018934188 = score(doc=3705,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 6328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=6328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 6328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6328)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of information science. 26(2000) no.6, S.429-451

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=3835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of information science. 28(2002) no.3, S.375-388