Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01
    0.0062174173 = product of:
      0.031087086 = sum of:
        0.022465102 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022465102 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
        0.008621982 = product of:
          0.025865946 = sum of:
            0.025865946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025865946 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02727315 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  2. 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
    0.0033352028 = product of:
      0.03335203 = sum of:
        0.03335203 = weight(_text_:web in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03335203 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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).
  3. Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.00
    0.0019255801 = product of:
      0.0192558 = sum of:
        0.0192558 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0192558 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
  4. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.00
    7.39027E-4 = product of:
      0.00739027 = sum of:
        0.00739027 = product of:
          0.02217081 = sum of:
            0.02217081 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02217081 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02727315 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04