Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userNeed to categorize: A comparative look at the categories of the Universal Decimal Classification system (UDC) and Wikipedia
92
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Andrea Scharnhorst
Publication date
2011
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This study analyzes the differences between the category structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) system (which is one of the widely used library classification systems in Europe) and Wikipedia. In particular, we compare the emerging structure of category-links to the structure of classes in the UDC. With this comparison we would like to scrutinize the question of how do knowledge maps of the same domain differ when they are created socially (i.e. Wikipedia) as opposed to when they are created formally (UDC) using classificatio theory. As a case study, we focus on the category of Arts.
rate research
Read More
We look at the network of mathematicians defined by the hyperlinks between their biographies on Wikipedia. We show how to extract this information using three snapshots of the Wikipedia data, taken in 2013, 2017 and 2018. We illustrate how such Wikipedia data can be used by performing a centrality analysis. These measures show that Hilbert and Newton are the most important mathematicians. We use our example to illustrate the strengths and weakness of centrality measures and to show how to provide estimates of the robustness of centrality measurements. In part, we do this by comparison to results from two other sources: an earlier study of biographies on the MacTutor website and a small informal survey of the opinion of mathematics and physics students at Imperial College London.
Log analysis in Web search showed that user sessions often contain several different topics. This means sessions need to be segmented into parts which handle the same topic in order to give appropriate user support based on the topic, and not on a mixture of topics. Different methods have been proposed to segment a user session to different topics based on timeouts, lexical analysis, query similarity or external knowledge sources. In this paper, we study the problem in a digital library for the social sciences. We present a method based on a thesaurus and a classification system which are typical knowledge organization systems in digital libraries. Five experts evaluated our approach and rated it as good for the segmentation of search sessions into parts that treat the same topic.
Many digital libraries recommend literature to their users considering the similarity between a query document and their repository. However, they often fail to distinguish what is the relationship that makes two documents alike. In this paper, we model the problem of finding the relationship between two documents as a pairwise document classification task. To find the semantic relation between documents, we apply a series of techniques, such as GloVe, Paragraph-Vectors, BERT, and XLNet under different configurations (e.g., sequence length, vector concatenation scheme), including a Siamese architecture for the Transformer-based systems. We perform our experiments on a newly proposed dataset of 32,168 Wikipedia article pairs and Wikidata properties that define the semantic document relations. Our results show vanilla BERT as the best performing system with an F1-score of 0.93, which we manually examine to better understand its applicability to other domains. Our findings suggest that classifying semantic relations between documents is a solvable task and motivates the development of recommender systems based on the evaluated techniques. The discussions in this paper serve as first steps in the exploration of documents through SPARQL-like queries such that one could find documents that are similar in one aspect but dissimilar in another.
Wikipedias contents are based on reliable and published sources. To this date, relatively little is known about what sources Wikipedia relies on, in part because extracting citations and identifying cited sources is challenging. To close this gap, we release Wikipedia Citations, a comprehensive dataset of citations extracted from Wikipedia. A total of 29.3M citations were extracted from 6.1M English Wikipedia articles as of May 2020, and classified as being to books, journal articles or Web contents. We were thus able to extract 4.0M citations to scholarly publications with known identifiers -- including DOI, PMC, PMID, and ISBN -- and further equip an extra 261K citations with DOIs from Crossref. As a result, we find that 6.7% of Wikipedia articles cite at least one journal article with an associated DOI, and that Wikipedia cites just 2% of all articles with a DOI currently indexed in the Web of Science. We release our code to allow the community to extend upon our work and update the dataset in the future.
Our study is one of the first examples of multidimensional and longitudinal disciplinary analysis at the national level based on Crossref data. We present a large-scale quantitative analysis of Ukrainian economics. This study is not yet another example of research aimed at ranking of local journals, authors or institutions, but rather exploring general tendencies that can be compared to other countries or regions. We study different aspects of Ukrainian economics output. In particular, the collaborative nature, geographic landscape and some peculiarities of citation statistics are investigated. We have found that Ukrainian economics is characterized by a comparably small share of co-authored publications, however, it demonstrates the tendency towards more collaborative output. Based on our analysis, we discuss specific and universal features of Ukrainian economic research. The importance of supporting various initiatives aimed at enriching open scholarly metadata is considered. A comprehensive and high-quality meta description of publications is probably the shortest path to a better understanding of national trends, especially for non-English speaking countries. The results of our analysis can be used to better understand Ukrainian economic research and support research policy decisions.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
