Which topics are best represented by science maps? An analysis of clustering effectiveness for citation and text similarity networks

Juan Pablo Bascur, Suzan Verberne, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman
{"title":"Which topics are best represented by science maps? An analysis of clustering effectiveness for citation and text similarity networks","authors":"Juan Pablo Bascur, Suzan Verberne, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman","doi":"arxiv-2406.06454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A science map of topics is a visualization that shows topics identified\nalgorithmically based on the bibliographic metadata of scientific publications.\nIn practice not all topics are well represented in a science map. We analyzed\nhow effectively different topics are represented in science maps created by\nclustering biomedical publications. To achieve this, we investigated which\ntopic categories, obtained from MeSH terms, are better represented in science\nmaps based on citation or text similarity networks. To evaluate the clustering\neffectiveness of topics, we determined the extent to which documents belonging\nto the same topic are grouped together in the same cluster. We found that the\nbest and worst represented topic categories are the same for citation and text\nsimilarity networks. The best represented topic categories are diseases,\npsychology, anatomy, organisms and the techniques and equipment used for\ndiagnostics and therapy, while the worst represented topic categories are\nnatural science fields, geographical entities, information sciences and health\ncare and occupations. Furthermore, for the diseases and organisms topic\ncategories and for science maps with smaller clusters, we found that topics\ntend to be better represented in citation similarity networks than in text\nsimilarity networks.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.06454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A science map of topics is a visualization that shows topics identified algorithmically based on the bibliographic metadata of scientific publications. In practice not all topics are well represented in a science map. We analyzed how effectively different topics are represented in science maps created by clustering biomedical publications. To achieve this, we investigated which topic categories, obtained from MeSH terms, are better represented in science maps based on citation or text similarity networks. To evaluate the clustering effectiveness of topics, we determined the extent to which documents belonging to the same topic are grouped together in the same cluster. We found that the best and worst represented topic categories are the same for citation and text similarity networks. The best represented topic categories are diseases, psychology, anatomy, organisms and the techniques and equipment used for diagnostics and therapy, while the worst represented topic categories are natural science fields, geographical entities, information sciences and health care and occupations. Furthermore, for the diseases and organisms topic categories and for science maps with smaller clusters, we found that topics tend to be better represented in citation similarity networks than in text similarity networks.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学地图最能体现哪些主题?引文和文本相似性网络的聚类效果分析
主题科学地图是一种可视化工具,用于显示根据科学出版物的书目元数据通过算法确定的主题。我们分析了不同主题在通过生物医学出版物聚类创建的科学地图中的有效体现程度。为此,我们研究了从 MeSH 术语中获得的哪些主题类别在基于引文或文本相似性网络的科学地图中得到了更好的体现。为了评估主题的聚类效果,我们确定了属于同一主题的文档在同一聚类中的聚类程度。我们发现,在引文网络和文本相似性网络中,代表性最好和最差的主题类别是相同的。代表性最好的主题类别是疾病、心理学、解剖学、生物体以及诊断和治疗所用的技术和设备,而代表性最差的主题类别是自然科学领域、地理实体、信息科学以及医疗保健和职业。此外,对于疾病和生物体主题类别以及具有较小聚类的科学地图,我们发现主题在引文相似性网络中的代表性往往优于在文本相似性网络中的代表性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publishing Instincts: An Exploration-Exploitation Framework for Studying Academic Publishing Behavior and "Home Venues" Research Citations Building Trust in Wikipedia Evaluating the Linguistic Coverage of OpenAlex: An Assessment of Metadata Accuracy and Completeness Towards understanding evolution of science through language model series Ensuring Adherence to Standards in Experiment-Related Metadata Entered Via Spreadsheets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1