Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026664922 = product of:
  0.066662304 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=671,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:50:00

0.025459195 = product of:
  0.063647985 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 5326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=5326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 5326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5326)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5326)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Finding relevant publications is a common task. Typically, a researcher browses through a list of publications and traces additional relevant publications. When relevant publications are identified, the list may be expanded by the citation links of the relevant publications. The information needs of researchers may change as they go through such iterative processes. The exploration process quickly becomes cumbersome as the list expands. Most existing academic search systems tend to be limited in terms of the extent to which searchers can adapt their search as they proceed. In this article, we introduce an adaptive visual exploration system named PaperPoles to support exploration of scientific publications in a context-aware environment. Searchers can express their information needs by intuitively formulating positive and negative queries. The search results are grouped and displayed in a cluster view, which shows aspects and relevance patterns of the results to support navigation and exploration. We conducted an experiment to compare PaperPoles with a list-based interface in performing two academic search tasks with different complexity. The results show that PaperPoles can improve the accuracy of searching for the simple and complex tasks. It can also reduce the completion time of searching and improve exploration effectiveness in the complex task. PaperPoles demonstrates a potentially effective workflow for adaptive visual search of complex information.

0.024017572 = product of:
  0.06004393 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field

Date

29. 9.2001 14:00:53

0.0064557428 = product of:
  0.032278713 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 64) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=64,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 64, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=64)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A critical part of a scientific activity is to discern how a new idea is related to what we know and what may become possible. As the number of new scientific publications arrives at a rate that rapidly outpaces our capacity of reading, analyzing, and synthesizing scientific knowledge, we need to augment ourselves with information that can effectively guide us through the rapidly growing intellectual space. In this article, we address a fundamental issue concerning what kinds of information may serve as early signs of potentially valuable ideas. In particular, we are interested in information that is routinely available and derivable upon the publication of a scientific paper without assuming the availability of additional information such as its usage and citations. We propose a theoretical and computational model that predicts the potential of a scientific publication in terms of the degree to which it alters the intellectual structure of the state of the art. The structural variation approach focuses on the novel boundary-spanning connections introduced by a new article to the intellectual space. We validate the role of boundary-spanning in predicting future citations using three metrics of structural variation-namely, modularity change rate, cluster linkage, and Centrality Divergence-along with more commonly studied predictors of citations such as the number of coauthors, the number of cited references, and the number of pages. Main effects of these factors are estimated for five cases using zero-inflated negative binomial regression models of citation counts. Key findings indicate that (a) structural variations measured by cluster linkage are a better predictor of citation counts than are the more commonly studied variables such as the number of references cited, (b) the number of coauthors and the number of references are both good predictors of global citation counts to a lesser extent, and (c) the Centrality Divergence metric is potentially valuable for detecting boundary-spanning activities at interdisciplinary levels. The structural variation approach offers a new way to monitor and discern the potential of newly published papers in context. The boundary-spanning mechanism offers a conceptually simplified and unifying explanation of the roles played by commonly studied extrinsic properties of a publication in the study of citation behavior.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using visual analytic systems effectively may incur a steep learning curve for users, especially for those who have little prior knowledge of either using the tool or accomplishing analytic tasks. How do users deal with a steep learning curve over time? Are there particularly problematic aspects of an analytic process? In this article we investigate these questions through an integrative study of the use of CiteSpace-a visual analytic tool for finding trends and patterns in scientific literature. In particular, we analyze millions of interactive events in logs generated by users worldwide over a 14-month period. The key findings are: (i) three levels of proficiency are identified, namely, level 1: low proficiency, level 2: intermediate proficiency, and level 3: high proficiency, and (ii) behavioral patterns at level 3 are resulted from a more engaging interaction with the system, involving a wider variety of events and being characterized by longer state transition paths, whereas behavioral patterns at levels 1 and 2 seem to focus on learning how to use the tool. This study contributes to the development and evaluation of visual analytic systems in realistic settings and provides a valuable addition to the study of interactive visual analytic processes.

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 1.2014 16:38:28

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05