51,261 research outputs found
Applied Evaluative Informetrics: Part 1
This manuscript is a preprint version of Part 1 (General Introduction and
Synopsis) of the book Applied Evaluative Informetrics, to be published by
Springer in the summer of 2017. This book presents an introduction to the field
of applied evaluative informetrics, and is written for interested scholars and
students from all domains of science and scholarship. It sketches the field's
history, recent achievements, and its potential and limits. It explains the
notion of multi-dimensional research performance, and discusses the pros and
cons of 28 citation-, patent-, reputation- and altmetrics-based indicators. In
addition, it presents quantitative research assessment as an evaluation
science, and focuses on the role of extra-informetric factors in the
development of indicators, and on the policy context of their application. It
also discusses the way forward, both for users and for developers of
informetric tools.Comment: The posted version is a preprint (author copy) of Part 1 (General
Introduction and Synopsis) of a book entitled Applied Evaluative
Bibliometrics, to be published by Springer in the summer of 201
The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable
The multiple online research impact metrics we are developing will allow the rich new database , the Research Web, to be navigated, analyzed, mined and evaluated in powerful new ways that were not even conceivable in the paper era – nor even in the online era, until the database and the tools became openly accessible for online use by all: by researchers, research institutions, research funders, teachers, students, and even by the general public that funds the research and for whose benefit it is being conducted: Which research is being used most? By whom? Which research is growing most quickly? In what direction? under whose influence? Which research is showing immediate short-term usefulness, which shows delayed, longer term usefulness, and which has sustained long-lasting impact? Which research and researchers are the most authoritative? Whose research is most using this authoritative research, and whose research is the authoritative research using? Which are the best pointers (“hubs”) to the authoritative research? Is there any way to predict what research will have later citation impact (based on its earlier download impact), so junior researchers can be given resources before their work has had a chance to make itself felt through citations? Can research trends and directions be predicted from the online database? Can text content be used to find and compare related research, for influence, overlap, direction? Can a layman, unfamiliar with the specialized content of a field, be guided to the most relevant and important work? These are just a sample of the new online-age questions that the Open Research Web will begin to answer
Using citation-context to reduce topic drifting on pure citation-based recommendation
Recent works in the area of academic recommender systems have demonstrated the effectiveness of co-citation and citation closeness in related-document recommendations. However, documents recommended from such systems may drift away from the main theme of the query document. In this work, we investigate whether incorporating the textual information in close proximity to a citation as well as the citation position could reduce such drifting and further increase the performance of the recommender system. To investigate this, we run experiments with several recommendation methods on a newly created and now publicly available dataset containing 53 million unique citation-based records. We then conduct a user-based evaluation with domain-knowledgeable participants. Our results show that a new method based on the combination of Citation Proximity Analysis (CPA), topic modelling and word embeddings achieves more than 20% improvement in Normalised Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG) compared to CPA
Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSensor Approach using Shannon's Entropy
Expert finding is an information retrieval task concerned with the search for
the most knowledgeable people, in some topic, with basis on documents
describing peoples activities. The task involves taking a user query as input
and returning a list of people sorted by their level of expertise regarding the
user query. This paper introduces a novel approach for combining multiple
estimators of expertise based on a multisensor data fusion framework together
with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and Shannon's entropy. More
specifically, we defined three sensors which detect heterogeneous information
derived from the textual contents, from the graph structure of the citation
patterns for the community of experts, and from profile information about the
academic experts. Given the evidences collected, each sensor may define
different candidates as experts and consequently do not agree in a final
ranking decision. To deal with these conflicts, we applied the Dempster-Shafer
theory of evidence combined with Shannon's Entropy formula to fuse this
information and come up with a more accurate and reliable final ranking list.
Experiments made over two datasets of academic publications from the Computer
Science domain attest for the adequacy of the proposed approach over the
traditional state of the art approaches. We also made experiments against
representative supervised state of the art algorithms. Results revealed that
the proposed method achieved a similar performance when compared to these
supervised techniques, confirming the capabilities of the proposed framework
Learning to Rank Academic Experts in the DBLP Dataset
Expert finding is an information retrieval task that is concerned with the
search for the most knowledgeable people with respect to a specific topic, and
the search is based on documents that describe people's activities. The task
involves taking a user query as input and returning a list of people who are
sorted by their level of expertise with respect to the user query. Despite
recent interest in the area, the current state-of-the-art techniques lack in
principled approaches for optimally combining different sources of evidence.
This article proposes two frameworks for combining multiple estimators of
expertise. These estimators are derived from textual contents, from
graph-structure of the citation patterns for the community of experts, and from
profile information about the experts. More specifically, this article explores
the use of supervised learning to rank methods, as well as rank aggregation
approaches, for combing all of the estimators of expertise. Several supervised
learning algorithms, which are representative of the pointwise, pairwise and
listwise approaches, were tested, and various state-of-the-art data fusion
techniques were also explored for the rank aggregation framework. Experiments
that were performed on a dataset of academic publications from the Computer
Science domain attest the adequacy of the proposed approaches.Comment: Expert Systems, 2013. arXiv admin note: text overlap with
arXiv:1302.041
- …