Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015630199 = product of:
  0.039075494 = sum of:
    0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023397226 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:22:13

0.015313287 = product of:
  0.076566435 = sum of:
    0.076566435 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076566435 = score(doc=2887,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.39783734 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004679445 = product of:
  0.023397226 = sum of:
    0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023397226 = score(doc=1044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1044)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, we use innovative full-text citation analysis along with supervised topic modeling and network-analysis algorithms to enhance classical bibliometric analysis and publication/author/venue ranking. By utilizing citation contexts extracted from a large number of full-text publications, each citation or publication is represented by a probability distribution over a set of predefined topics, where each topic is labeled by an author-contributed keyword. We then used publication/citation topic distribution to generate a citation graph with vertex prior and edge transitioning probability distributions. The publication importance score for each given topic is calculated by PageRank with edge and vertex prior distributions. To evaluate this work, we sampled 104 topics (labeled with keywords) in review papers. The cited publications of each review paper are assumed to be "important publications" for the target topic (keyword), and we use these cited publications to validate our topic-ranking result and to compare different publication-ranking lists. Evaluation results show that full-text citation and publication content prior topic distribution, along with the classical PageRank algorithm can significantly enhance bibliometric analysis and scientific publication ranking performance, comparing with term frequency-inverted document frequency (tf-idf), language model, BM25, PageRank, and PageRank + language model (p < .001), for academic information retrieval (IR) systems.

0.004621727 = product of:
  0.023108633 = sum of:
    0.023108633 = product of:
      0.046217266 = sum of:
        0.046217266 = weight(_text_:web in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046217266 = score(doc=2857,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bibliometric analysis based on literature in the Web of Science (WOS) has become an increasingly popular method for visualizing the structure of scientific fields. Keywords Plus and Author Keywords are commonly selected as units of analysis, despite the limited research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Keywords Plus. This study was conceived to evaluate the efficacy of Keywords Plus as a parameter for capturing the content and scientific concepts presented in articles. Using scientific papers about patient adherence that were retrieved from WOS, a comparative assessment of Keywords Plus and Author Keywords was performed at the scientific field level and the document level, respectively. Our search yielded more Keywords Plus terms than Author Keywords, and the Keywords Plus terms were more broadly descriptive. Keywords Plus is as effective as Author Keywords in terms of bibliometric analysis investigating the knowledge structure of scientific fields, but it is less comprehensive in representing an article's content.

Object

Web of Science

0.0027233788 = product of:
  0.013616893 = sum of:
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The findings of a recent study on digital archival representation raise some ethical concerns about how digital archival materials are organized, described, and made available for use on the Web. Archivists have a fundamental obligation to preserve and protect the authenticity and integrity of records in their holdings and, at the same time, have the responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives (SAA 2005 Code of Ethics for Archivists V & VI). Is it an ethical practice that digital content in digital archives is deeply embedded in its contextual structure and generally underrepresented in digital archival systems? Similarly, is it ethical for archivists to detach digital items from their archival context in order to make them more "digital friendly" and more accessible to meet needs of some users? Do archivists have an obligation to bring the two representation systems together so that the context and content of digital archives can be better represented and archival materials "can be located and used by anyone, for any purpose, while still remaining authentic evidence of the work and life of the creator"? (Millar 2010, 157) This paper discusses the findings of the study and their ethical implications relating to digital archival description and representation.

0.0027233788 = product of:
  0.013616893 = sum of:
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 3088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=3088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)