Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021049907 = product of:
  0.03508318 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012618518 = score(doc=883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:40:36

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.168-185

0.005293766 = product of:
  0.02646883 = sum of:
    0.02646883 = weight(_text_:of in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02646883 = score(doc=602,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to reveal the global non-synchronism that exists in the theoretical research of information science (IS) by analyzing and comparing the distribution of theory use, creation and borrowing in four representative journals from the USA, the UK and China. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative content analysis is adopted as the research method. First, an analytical framework for non-synchronism in theoretical research of IS is constructed. Second, theories mentioned in the full texts of the research papers of four journals are extracted according to a theory dictionary made before. Third, the non-synchronism in the theoretical research of IS is analyzed. Findings Non-synchronism exists in many aspects of the theoretical research of IS between journals, subject areas and countries/regions. The theoretical underdevelopment still exists in some subject areas of IS. IS presents obvious interdisciplinary characteristics. The theoretical distance from IS to social sciences is shorter than that to natural sciences. Research limitations/implications This study investigates the theoretical research of IS from the perspective of non-synchronism theory, reveals the theoretical distance from IS to other sciences, deepens the communication between different subject and regional sub-communities of IS and provides new evidences for the necessity of developing domestic theories and theorists of IS. Originality/value This study introduces the theory of non-synchronism to IS research for the first time, investigates the new advances in theoretical research of IS and provides new quantitative evidences for the understanding of the interdisciplinary characteristics of IS and the necessity of better communication between sub-communities of IS.

Source

Journal of documentation. 77(2021) no.6, S.1430-1454

0.0037432574 = product of:
  0.018716287 = sum of:
    0.018716287 = weight(_text_:of in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018716287 = score(doc=621,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Each section header of an article has its distinct communicative function. Citations from distinct sections may be different regarding citing motivation. In this paper, we grouped section headers with similar functions as a structural function and defined the distribution of citations from structural functions for a paper as its citation structure. We aim to explore the relationship between citation structure and the future impact of a publication and disclose the relative importance among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, we proposed two citation counting methods and a citation life cycle identification method, by which the regression data were built. Subsequently, we employed a ridge regression model to predict the future impact of the paper and analyzed the relative weights of regressors. Based on documents collected from the Association for Computational Linguistics Anthology website, our empirical experiments disclosed that functional structure features improve the prediction accuracy of citation count prediction and that there exist differences among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, at the early stage of citation lifetime, citations from Introduction and Method are particularly important for perceiving future impact of papers, and citations from Result and Conclusion are also vital. However, early accumulation of citations from the Background seems less important.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.1025-1042