网络舆情场中信息受众观点测度的机理及路径分析

[目的/意义]整合定性与定量的舆情研究视角,统一多模态研究对象,实现网络舆情信息受众的观点测度,可修复网络舆情分析与治理的理论与实践裂痕。[方法/过程]通过引入网络舆情场的概念,对网络舆情信息受众、受众观点测度的内涵进行诠释,就网络舆情场与信息受众观点测度的逻辑关系加以辩证讨论。[结果/结论]提出网络舆情场内舆情受众观点测度机理和具体测度路径,为后续网络舆情场中的网络舆情信息分析、多维度信息受众观点测度,受众认知规律发现,网络舆情监督和管控限制等层面的研究做相应铺垫。     

我国文化金融研究领域文献分析——来自2002-2016年CSSCI来源数据库的证据

随着文化产业的快速发展,文化金融成为新兴的研究领域。本文选择2002-2016年CSSCI数据库收录的文化金融相关研究文献,运用词频统计法、可视化知识图谱法、内容分析法等多种文献计量研究方法全面分析国内有关金融支持文化产业发展的研究现状。研究发现:现阶段有关金融支持文化产业发展的研究文献逐年增加,分布期刊和研究机构众多,研究范围较广,研究内容包含国际经验比较、经验分析和实证分析;但目前该领域的研究主题相对分散,研究不够深入,缺乏微观数据支撑和模型研究,缺乏构建金融支持体系操作层面的分析,缺乏对具象产业的差异化分析,这些是未来进一步研究的方向。     

复旦大学图书馆数学类英文图书引进及保障数据集

运用引文分析法,选取国内外高校使用的数学类经典教材所引用的参考文献,并对这些参考文献中的英文图书进行引文量统计。继而分别对复旦大学图书馆及CALIS中心数学类英文图书的保障率进行排查检索和测评。共有引文记录10519条,去重后共计8166条英文图书书目信息。本数据集可以对目前我国高等院校图书馆的专业学科类英文图书资源引进和利用提供有效评估和国际参考。     

数字人文视角:基于符号分析法的宋代政治网络可视化研究

数字人文的兴起引发了社会人文历史领域的广泛关注,海量的数据资源与新兴的数据分析技术为更高效和宏观地解决人文研究中长期存疑和讨论的主题提供了全新的思维范式。尽管有关数字人文的合理性仍存在诸多争议,但是数据驱动下的跨领域人文计算在人文主义重构活动深度与广度上所展现出的高效性已经被大量项目与实践所证明。本文以宋代政治为例,从数字人文视角出发,借助符号分析方法对哈佛大学“中国历代人物资料库”进行实证探索与可视化分析,结合已有的史学问题和相关观点,从宋代政治整体网络分布特征、核心人物的地位与结构拓扑以及不同时期宋代政治网络的时序政治关系演化模式三个层次,进行逐一分析与讨论,为研究宋代党争政治格局提供了一种新的思考方式,同时也展现了数字人文技术在人文历史领域研究中的可行性与巨大潜能。图8。表5。参考文献40。     

我国期刊集群的研究进展与发展态势——基于共词分析方法

期刊集群是国际期刊业的重要发展趋势,也是提升我国期刊整体水平的正确方向,理解和把握期刊集群的研究热点和发展态势是做好期刊集群理论创新和实践应用的关键问题。基于共词分析法,研究我国期刊集群领域学术论文的整体概况、高频     

生存分析法在学术期刊评价上的应用初探

期刊评价中文献老化理论视角的研究相对薄弱。本文探究生存分析法在学术期刊评价上的应用,在理论上 克服了因领域差异导致的壁垒,并选取CSTPCD中30家中文物理学科期刊作为样本数据集进行实证研究。通过对论文 被引时序数据进行分析,研究物理学科文献老化规律,并选取样本期刊进行对比分析,以探究期刊评价的新思路。     

Author ranking evaluation at scale

We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs.We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation.     

The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions

Scientific research is increasingly relying on collaborations to address complex real-world problems. Many researchers, policymakers, and administrators consider a multidisciplinary environment an important factor for fostering research collaborations, especially interdisciplinary ones that involve researchers from different disciplines. However, it remains unknown whether a higher level of multidisciplinarity within an academic institution is associated with internal collaborations that are more prevalent and more interdisciplinary. Analyzing 90,000 publications by 2500 faculty members in over 100 academic institutions from three multidisciplinary areas, information, public policy, and neuroscience, we investigated the connection between multidisciplinarity and research collaborations. Based on social network analysis and text mining, our analysis suggests that more multidisciplinary institutions are not necessarily more collaborative, although they do feature collaborations that are more interdisciplinary. Our findings provide implications for academic administrators and policymakers to promote research collaborations and interdisciplinarity in academic institutions.     

Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?

Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008–2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.     

Placing Facebook

Facebook is challenging professional journalism. These challenges were evident in three incidents from 2016: the allegation that Facebook privileged progressive-leaning news on its trending feature; Facebook’s removal of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Napalm Girl” photo from the pages of prominent users; and the proliferation of “fake news” during the US presidential election. Using theoretical concepts from the field of boundary work, this paper examines how The Guardian, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review and Poynter editorialized Facebook’s role in these three incidents to discursively construct the boundary between the value of professional journalism to democracy and Facebook’s ascendant role in facilitating essential democratic functions. Findings reveal that these publications attempted to define Facebook as a news organization (i.e., include it within the boundaries of journalism) so that they could then criticize the company for not following duties traditionally incumbent upon news organizations (i.e., place it outside the boundaries of journalism). This paper advances scholarship that focuses on both inward and outward conceptions of boundary work, further explores the complex challenge of defining who a journalist is in the face of rapidly changing technological norms, and advances scholarship in the field of media ethics that positions ethical analysis at the institutional level.