Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhang, J."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.: ¬A user term visualization analysis based on a social question and answer log (2013) 0.01 
    0.011243585 = product of:
  0.11243584 = sum of:
    0.11243584 = weight(_text_:log in 2715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11243584 = score(doc=2715,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.61319727 = fieldWeight in 2715, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2715)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The authors of this paper investigate terms of consumers' diabetes based on a log from the Yahoo!Answers social question and answers (Q&A) forum, ascertain characteristics and relationships among terms related to diabetes from the consumers' perspective, and reveal users' diabetes information seeking patterns. In this study, the log analysis method, data coding method, and visualization multiple-dimensional scaling analysis method were used for analysis. The visual analyses were conducted at two levels: terms analysis within a category and category analysis among the categories in the schema. The findings show that the average number of words per question was 128.63, the average number of sentences per question was 8.23, the average number of words per response was 254.83, and the average number of sentences per response was 16.01. There were 12 categories (Cause & Pathophysiology, Sign & Symptom, Diagnosis & Test, Organ & Body Part, Complication & Related Disease, Medication, Treatment, Education & Info Resource, Affect, Social & Culture, Lifestyle, and Nutrient) in the diabetes related schema which emerged from the data coding analysis. The analyses at the two levels show that terms and categories were clustered and patterns were revealed. Future research directions are also included.
  2. Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z.: Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords : a case study of patient adherence research (2016) 0.00 
    0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=2857,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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
  3. Zhang, J.: Archival context, digital content, and the ethics of digital archival representation : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016833913 = product of:
  0.016833913 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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.
  4. Zhang, J.; Zhai, S.; Stevenson, J.A.; Xia, L.: Optimization of the subject directory in a government agriculture department web portal (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016833913 = product of:
  0.016833913 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 3088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=3088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
  5. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.00 
    6.4607634E-4 = product of:
  0.006460763 = sum of:
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    8. 4.2015 16:22:13

Authors

Themes