-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.02
0.018777166 = product of:
0.056331497 = sum of:
0.056331497 = product of:
0.08449724 = sum of:
0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03610713 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048390117 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Ding, Y.: Visualization of intellectual structure in information retrieval : author cocitation analysis (1998)
0.01
0.008023808 = product of:
0.024071421 = sum of:
0.024071421 = product of:
0.07221426 = sum of:
0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07221426 = score(doc=2792,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.C.; Foo, S.: Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis (2001)
0.01
0.006877549 = product of:
0.020632647 = sum of:
0.020632647 = product of:
0.06189794 = sum of:
0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06189794 = score(doc=6487,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 6487, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6487)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009)
0.00
0.0034387745 = product of:
0.0103163235 = sum of:
0.0103163235 = product of:
0.03094897 = sum of:
0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03094897 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011)
0.00
0.0028656456 = product of:
0.008596936 = sum of:
0.008596936 = product of:
0.025790809 = sum of:
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.
