Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation
碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 資訊管理研究所 === 98 === In the citation analysis fields, "bibliographic coupling" appears prior to "co-citation". While co-citation have been used widely, whereas bibliographic coupling is discussed and used rarely. However, we saw more researches have been devoted t...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | zh-TW |
Published: |
2010
|
Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/09112059195459816123 |
id |
ndltd-TW-098NTPU0396019 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-TW-098NTPU03960192015-10-13T18:21:45Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/09112059195459816123 Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation 探究書目耦合與共同引用之智識構圖與內容差異 Hsu, Chia-Jung 許家榮 碩士 國立臺北大學 資訊管理研究所 98 In the citation analysis fields, "bibliographic coupling" appears prior to "co-citation". While co-citation have been used widely, whereas bibliographic coupling is discussed and used rarely. However, we saw more researches have been devoted to study the differences between the two citation methods recently. It has been purported that the bibliographic coupling may supplement the co-citation in some aspects. In contrast with most of the previous researches that focus on the co-citation analysis, this research compares the intellectual structures and domain contents derived from the bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis. This study obtains dataset collected from the Scientific Literature Digital Library – Citeseer. We use the same dataset in the analysis utilizing both bibliographic coupling and co-citation, and compare the intellectual structures derived from these two analyses in terms of five indicators. We then illustrate the differences between the two outcomes and further analyze the content and interpret the result. In summary, we find the analysis using the co-citation is better than that of bibliographic coupling in two aspects – "Size of specialties" and "Nature of specialties". In the "Individual document's memberships" indicator, bibliographic coupling is suitable to researchers who want to understand the recent developments and emerging issues in the field but co-citation is more appropriate when researchers want to have an overview of the evolution history of the field. Lastly, they are equally good in the aspects of "Overlap between specialties" and "Overall structure" because both display clearly the association between various issues and the present situation of the knowledge domain. Chen, Tsung -Teng 陳宗天 2010 學位論文 ; thesis 93 zh-TW |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
zh-TW |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 資訊管理研究所 === 98 === In the citation analysis fields, "bibliographic coupling" appears prior to "co-citation". While co-citation have been used widely, whereas bibliographic coupling is discussed and used rarely. However, we saw more researches have been devoted to study the differences between the two citation methods recently. It has been purported that the bibliographic coupling may supplement the co-citation in some aspects.
In contrast with most of the previous researches that focus on the co-citation analysis, this research compares the intellectual structures and domain contents derived from the bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis.
This study obtains dataset collected from the Scientific Literature Digital Library – Citeseer. We use the same dataset in the analysis utilizing both bibliographic coupling and co-citation, and compare the intellectual structures derived from these two analyses in terms of five indicators. We then illustrate the differences between the two outcomes and further analyze the content and interpret the result.
In summary, we find the analysis using the co-citation is better than that of bibliographic coupling in two aspects – "Size of specialties" and "Nature of specialties". In the "Individual document's memberships" indicator, bibliographic coupling is suitable to researchers who want to understand the recent developments and emerging issues in the field but co-citation is more appropriate when researchers want to have an overview of the evolution history of the field. Lastly, they are equally good in the aspects of "Overlap between specialties" and "Overall structure" because both display clearly the association between various issues and the present situation of the knowledge domain.
|
author2 |
Chen, Tsung -Teng |
author_facet |
Chen, Tsung -Teng Hsu, Chia-Jung 許家榮 |
author |
Hsu, Chia-Jung 許家榮 |
spellingShingle |
Hsu, Chia-Jung 許家榮 Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
author_sort |
Hsu, Chia-Jung |
title |
Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
title_short |
Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
title_full |
Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
title_fullStr |
Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Exploring Intellectual Structure and Content between Bibliographic Coupling and Co-Citation |
title_sort |
exploring intellectual structure and content between bibliographic coupling and co-citation |
publishDate |
2010 |
url |
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/09112059195459816123 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT hsuchiajung exploringintellectualstructureandcontentbetweenbibliographiccouplingandcocitation AT xǔjiāróng exploringintellectualstructureandcontentbetweenbibliographiccouplingandcocitation AT hsuchiajung tànjiūshūmùǒuhéyǔgòngtóngyǐnyòngzhīzhìshígòutúyǔnèiróngchàyì AT xǔjiāróng tànjiūshūmùǒuhéyǔgòngtóngyǐnyòngzhīzhìshígòutúyǔnèiróngchàyì |
_version_ |
1718032363092443136 |