اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAnalysis of the Wikipedia Network of Mathematicians
74
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Science is a growing system, exhibiting ~4% annual growth in publications and ~1.8% annual growth in the number of references per publication. Combined these trends correspond to a 12-year doubling period in the total supply of references, thereby ch
allenging traditional methods of evaluating scientific production, from researchers to institutions. Against this background, we analyzed a citation network comprised of 837 million references produced by 32.6 million publications over the period 1965-2012, allowing for a temporal analysis of the `attention economy in science. Unlike previous studies, we analyzed the entire probability distribution of reference ages - the time difference between a citing and cited paper - thereby capturing previously overlooked trends. Over this half-century period we observe a narrowing range of attention - both classic and recent literature are being cited increasingly less, pointing to the important role of socio-technical processes. To better understand the impact of exponential growth on the underlying knowledge network we develop a network-based model, featuring the redirection of scientific attention via publications reference lists, and validate the model against several empirical benchmarks. We then use the model to test the causal impact of real paradigm shifts, thereby providing guidance for science policy analysis. In particular, we show how perturbations to the growth rate of scientific output affects the reference age distribution and the functionality of the vast science citation network as an aid for the search & retrieval of knowledge. In order to account for the inflation of science, our study points to the need for a systemic overhaul of the counting methods used to evaluate citation impact - especially in the case of evaluating science careers, which can span several decades and thus several doubling periods.
Citation prediction of scholarly papers is of great significance in guiding funding allocations, recruitment decisions, and rewards. However, little is known about how citation patterns evolve over time. By exploring the inherent involution property
in scholarly paper citation, we introduce the Paper Potential Index (PPI) model based on four factors: inherent quality of scholarly paper, scholarly paper impact decaying over time, early citations, and early citers impact. In addition, by analyzing factors that drive citation growth, we propose a multi-feature model for impact prediction. Experimental results demonstrate that the two models improve the accuracy in predicting scholarly paper citations. Compared to the multi-feature model, the PPI model yields superior predictive performance in terms of range-normalized RMSE. The PPI model better interprets the changes in citation, without the need to adjust parameters. Compared to the PPI model, the multi-feature model performs better prediction in terms of Mean Absolute Percentage Error and Accuracy; however, their predictive performance is more dependent on the parameter adjustment.
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 s
tructure 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.
Inspired by the social and economic benefits of diversity, we analyze over 9 million papers and 6 million scientists to study the relationship between research impact and five classes of diversity: ethnicity, discipline, gender, affiliation, and acad
emic age. Using randomized baseline models, we establish the presence of homophily in ethnicity, gender and affiliation. We then study the effect of diversity on scientific impact, as reflected in citations. Remarkably, of the classes considered, ethnic diversity had the strongest correlation with scientific impact. To further isolate the effects of ethnic diversity, we used randomized baseline models and again found a clear link between diversity and impact. To further support these findings, we use coarsened exact matching to compare the scientific impact of ethnically diverse papers and scientists with closely-matched control groups. Here, we find that ethnic diversity resulted in an impact gain of 10.63% for papers, and 47.67% for scientists.
Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams with both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a countrys scientific work is carried out by bi
g/small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that Chinas research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are done by big teams, Chinas drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative works does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small team works than the National Science Foundation of U.S. (NSF) does, implying that big teams are more preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which urges a need to balance small and big teams.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
