Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 37–50 | Cite as

Bottom-up scientific field detection for dynamical and hierarchical science mapping, methodology and case study

  • David ChavalariasEmail author
  • Jean-Philippe Cointet
Article

Abstract

We propose new methods to detect paradigmatic fields through simple statistics over a scientific content database. We propose an asymmetric paradigmatic proximity metric between terms which provide insight into hierarchical structure of scientific activity and test our methods on a case study with a database made of several millions of resources. We also propose overlapping categorization to describe paradigmatic fields as sets of terms that may have several different usages. Terms can also be dynamically clustered providing a high-level description of the evolution of the paradigmatic fields.

Keywords

Public Good Game Theory Experimental Economic Ultimatum Game Close Term 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., Van Raan, A. F. J. (1991), Mapping of science by combined cocitation and word analysis. II. dynamical aspects, Journal of American Society for Information Science, 42(4): 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buter, R., Noyons, E. (2002), Using bibliometric maps to visualise term distribution in scientific papers, In: Sixth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV’02), pp. 697–702.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. J. C., Bauin, S. (1983), From translation to problematic networks: an introduction to coword analysis, Social Science Information, 22: 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M., Courtial, J., Laville, F. (1991), Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interaction between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry, Scientometrics, 22(1): 155–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chavalarias, D., Cointet, J. (2007), Science mapping with asymmetric co-occurrence analysis: Methodology and case study, In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Complex Systems, Dresden, 1–5 oct. 2007.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, L. B. (1961), Semantic road maps for literature searchers, J. ACM, 8(4): 553–578.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfield, E. (2004), Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature, Journal of Information Science, 30(2): 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gergely Palla, P. P. I. D., Illés J Farkas, Vicsek, T. (2007) Directed network modules, New Journal of Physics, 9(6): 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, UCP, Chicago, second edition.Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory (Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Leydesdorff, L., Vaughan, L. (2006), Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending aca to the web environment, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 57(12): 1616–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin, X., Soergel, D. (1991), A self organizing semantic map for information retrieval, Proc. 14th International SIGIR Conference, 262–269.Google Scholar
  13. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2005), Bibliometric maps of field of science, Infometrics, 41(6): 1534–1547.Google Scholar
  14. Noyons, E., Van Raan, A. (2002), Dealing with the Data Flood. Mining Data, Text and Multimedia, J. Meij (Ed.), The Hague: STT/Beweton, pp. 64–72.Google Scholar
  15. Palla, G., Derenyi, I., Farkas, I., Vicsek, T. (2005), Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society, Nature, 435: 814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salton, G. (1963), Associative document retrieval techniques using bibliographic information, J. ACM, 10(4): 440–457.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Small, H. G. (1973), Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, Journal of American Society for Information Science, 24(4): 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun, Y. (2004), Methods for automated concept mapping between medical databases, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 37(3): 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turner, W. A., Chartron, G., Laville, F., Michelet, B. (1988), Packaging information for peer review: new co-word analysis techniques, In: VanRaan, A. F. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Van Den Besselaar, P. G. H. (2006), Mapping research topics using word-reference cooccurrences: A method and an exploratory case study, Scientometrics, 68(3): 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TSV (Social and Political Transformations related to Life Sciences and Life FormsINRAIvry sur SeineFrance
  2. 2.Center for Research in Applied Epistemology (CREA)Team Complex Systems, Adaptive Rationality and Social Cognition, Ecole PolytechniqueParisFrance

Personalised recommendations