收稿日期: 2014-03-10
修回日期: 2014-03-31
网络出版日期: 2014-04-20
基金资助
本文系国家自然科学基金项目“科研团队动态演化规律研究”（项目编号：71273196）研究成果之一。
Modeling and Analyzing Research Team in the Perspective of Meta-Network
Received date: 2014-03-10
Revised date: 2014-03-31
Online published: 2014-04-20
李纲 , 毛进 . 元网络视角下科研团队建模及分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014 , 58(08) : 65 -72 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.08.011
The study of scientific environment is shifting from scientific mapping into modeling and explaining science. Scholarly network model has been proved to own rich revealing capabilities for science. The research team is considered as the human social system in this paper. Inheriting and expanding the conceptual framework of scholarly network, many sorts of networks related to research team are integrated into the meta-network model for research team, with the clue of their internal associations. In such a manner, multidimensional data is cooperated to gain a bird view upon research team. On this basis, the direction of the potential application for static analysis is thus proposed and empirical analysis is carried out as examples to reflect the revealing ability of such a meta-network for research team.
Key words： research team; meta-network; network model; scholarly network
[1] Morris S A, Goldstein M L. Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(12): 1764-1782.
[2] Börner K, Boyack K W, Milojevi?S, et al. An introduction to modeling science: Basic model types, key definitions, and a general framework for the comparison of process models[M]//Models of Science Dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences. Berlin: Springer, 2012: 3-22.
[3] Scharnhorst A, Börner K, van den Besselaar P. Models of science dynamics:Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences[M]. Berlin: Springer, 2012.
[4] Börner K, Chen Chaomei, Boyack K W. Visualizing knowledge domains[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2003, 37(1): 179-255.
[5] Chen Chaomei. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(3): 359-377.
[6] Sci2 Team. Science of Science (Sci2) Tool[EB/OL].[2013-12-04].https://sci2.cns.iu.edu.
[7] Börner K, Maru J T, Goldstone R L. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks[J]. PNAS, 2004, 101(S1): 5266-5273.
[8] Drott M C, Griffith B C. An empirical examination of Bradford's law and the scattering of scientific literature[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1978, 29(5): 238-246.
[9] Lotka A J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity[J]. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences, 1926, 16(12):317-323.
[10] Newman M E J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[J]. PNAS, 2001, 98(2): 404-409.
[11] Huber J C. A new model that generates Lotka's law[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 53(3): 209-219.
[12] Scharnhorst A, Garfield E. Tracing scientific influence[EB/OL].[2013-07-23]. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3525.pdf.
[13] Riviera E. Scientific communities as autopoietic systems: The reproductive function of citations[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(7): 1442-1453.
[14] Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H. The triple helix as a model for innovation studies[J]. Science and Public Policy, 1998, 25(3): 195-203.
[15] Price D. Statistical studies of networks of scientific papers[C]//Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation: Symposium Proceedings. Washington:US Government Printing Office, 1965: 187.
[16] Yan Erjia, Ding Ying. Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(7): 1313-1326.
[17] Ramasco J J, Morris S A. Social inertia in collaboration networks[J]. Physical Review E, 2006, 73(1): 016122.
[18] Barabási A L, Jeong H, Néda Z, et al. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations[J]. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2002, 311(3): 590-614.
[19] Pan R K, Saramki J. The strength of strong ties in scientific collaboration networks[J]. Europhysics Letters, 2012, 97(1): 18007.
[20] Goldstein M L, Morris S A, Yen G G. Group-based Yule model for bipartite author-paper networks[J]. Physical Review E, 2005, 71(2): 026108.
[21] Carley K M. Computational organizational science and organizational engineering[J]. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 2002, 10(5): 253-269.
[22] Bohannon J. Counterterrorism's New Tool: 'Metanetwork' Analysis[J]. Science, 2009, 325(5939): 409-411.
[23] Carley K M, Reminga J. ORA: Organization risk analyzer [R]. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research, CMU-ISR-13-108, 2004.
[24] 易明,毛进,曹高辉,等. 互联网知识传播网络结构计量研究[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(1): 44-57.
[25] Small H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents[J]. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 1973, 24(4): 265-269.
[26] Kessler M M. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers[J]. American Documentation, 1963, 14(1): 10-25.
[27] Callon M, Courtial J P, Turner W A, et al. From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis[J]. Social Science Information, 1983, 22(2): 191-235.
[28] Viana M P, Amancio D R, da F Costa L. On time-varying collaboration networks[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 371-378.
[29] Blondel V D, Guillaume J L, Lambiotte R, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks[J]. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment,2008(10): P10008.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
