$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

지적구조 규명을 위한 키워드서지결합분석 기법에 관한 연구
Introducing Keyword Bibliographic Coupling Analysis (KBCA) for Identifying the Intellectual Structure 원문보기

정보관리학회지 = Journal of the Korean society for information management, v.39 no.1, 2022년, pp.309 - 330  

이재윤 (명지대학교 인문대학 문헌정보학과) ,  정은경 (이화여자대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

학문의 구조, 특성, 하위 분야 등을 계량적으로 규명하는 지적구조 분석 연구가 최근 급격히 증가하는 추세이다. 지적구조 분석 연구를 수행하기 위하여 전통적으로 사용되는 분석기법은 서지결합분석, 동시인용분석, 단어동시출현분석, 저자서지결합분석 등이다. 이 연구의 목적은 키워드서지결합분석(KBCA, Keyword Bibliographic Coupling Analysis)을 새로운 지적구조 분석 방식으로 제안하고자 한다. 키워드서지결합분석 기법은 저자서지결합분석의 변형으로 저자 대신에 키워드를 표지로 하여 키워드가 공유한 참고문헌의 수를 두 키워드의 주제적 결합 정도로 산정한다. 제안된 키워드서지결합분석 기법을 사용하여 Web of Science에서 검색된 'Open Data' 분야의 1,366건의 논문집합을 대상으로 분석하였다. 1,366건의 논문집합에서 추출된 7회 이상 출현한 63종의 키워드를 오픈데이터 분야의 핵심 키워드로 선정하였다. 63종의 핵심 키워드를 대상으로 키워드서지결합분석 기법으로 제시된 지적구조는 열린정부와 오픈사이언스라는 주된 영역과 10개의 소주제로 규명되었다. 이에 반해 단어동시출현분석의 지적구조 네트워크는 전체 구성과 세부 영역 구조 규명에 있어 미진한 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 키워드서지결합분석이 키워드 간의 서지결합도를 사용하여 키워드 간의 관계를 풍부하게 측정하기 때문이라고 볼 수 있다.

Abstract AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

Intellectual structure analysis, which quantitatively identifies the structure, characteristics, and sub-domains of fields, has rapidly increased in recent years. Analysis techniques traditionally used to conduct intellectual structure analysis research include bibliographic coupling analysis, co-ci...

주제어

표/그림 (13)

참고문헌 (43)

  1. Byun, Ji-Hye & Chung, Eun-Kyung (2011). Domain analysis on electrical engineering in Korea by author bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 42(4), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2011.42.4.075 

  2. Choi, Hyung Wook & Chung, Eunkyung (2017). An investigation on characteristics and intellectual structure of sociology by analyzing cited data. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 34(3), 109-124. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.109 

  3. Choi, Hyung Wook, Choi, Ye Jin, & Nam, So-Yeon (2018). Time series analysis of intellectual structure and research trend changes in the field of library and information science: 2003 to 2017. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 35(2), 89-114. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2018.35.2.08 

  4. Choi, Ye-Jin & Chung, Yeon-Kyoung (2016). A study on the intellectual structure of metadata research by using co-word analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(3), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.063 

  5. Chung, Eunkyung (2021). An investigation on digital humanities research trend by analyzing the papers of Digital Humanities Conferences. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 55(1), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2021.55.1.393 

  6. Kang, Beomil & Park, Ji-Hong (2013). Profiling and co-word analysis of teaching Korean as a foreign language domain. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 195-213. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.195 

  7. Kim, Heejeon & Cho, Hyun Yang (2010). A study on intellectual structure using author co-citation analysis and author bibliographic coupling analysis in the field of social welfare science. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 27(3), 283-306. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.3.283 

  8. Kim, Sun-Kyum, Kim, Wan-Jong, Seo, Tae-Sul, & Choi, Hyun-Jin Choi (2019). Domain analysis on the field of open access by co-word analysis: based on published journals of library and information science during 2013 to 2018. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 50(1), 333-356. http://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.50.1.201903.333 

  9. Lee, Jae Yun (2006a). Towards a new method for examining current domestic intellectual structure of knowledge domains. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Korean Society for Information Management, 145-152. 

  10. Lee, Jae Yun (2006b). A novel clustering method for examining and analyzing the intellectual structure of a scholarly field. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(4), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.4.215 

  11. Lee, Jae Yun (2008). Bibliographic author coupling analysis: a new methodological approach for identifying research trends. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(1), 173-190. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.1.173 

  12. Lee, Jae Yun (2013). A comparison study on the weighted network centrality measures of tnet and WNET. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 241-264. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.241 

  13. Lee, Jae Yun (2021). Considerations on some decision criteria in the intellectual structure analysis process. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Korean Society for Information Management, 91-100. 

  14. Lee, Ji-Won (2019). A study on analysis of research trends and intellectual structure of cataloging field. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 36(4), 279-300. http://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.pub.36.4.279001 

  15. Park, Ji Yeon & Jeong, Dong Youl (2013). A study on the Intellectual structure of library and information science in Korea by author bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 31-59. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.031 

  16. Park, SeonHee, Kang, ChangWook, & Yang, HyunKieu (2017). An analysis on the intellectual structure of studies related to the hearing impairments in Korea: focusing on co-word analysis. Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 167-187. http://doi.org/10.34249/jse.2017.24.1.167 

  17. Seo, SunKyung & Chung, EunKyung (2013). Domain analysis on the field of open access by co-word analysis. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 24(1), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2013.24.1.207 

  18. Shin, You Mi & Park, Oknam (2019). An analytical study on research trends of collection development and management. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 36(2), 105-131. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2019.36.2.105 

  19. Zhang, Ling Ling & Hong, Hyun Jin (2014). Examining the intellectual structure of reading studies with co-word analysis based on the importance of journals and sequence of keywords. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 25(1), 295-318. https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2014.25.1.295 

  20. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092 

  21. Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Pub. 

  22. Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked Data. Available: https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html 

  23. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 

  24. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003 

  25. Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2). 

  26. Cortes, C. & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20, 273-297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022627411411 

  27. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? a comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey Datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 682-703. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35097 

  28. He, J., Lou, W., & Li, K. (2019). How were science mapping tools applied? the application of science mapping tools in LIS and non-LIS domains. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 56(1), 404-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.38 

  29. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740 

  30. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103. 

  31. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017). ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3065386 

  32. Nativi, S., Craglia, M., & Pearlman, J. (2012). The brokering approach for multidisciplinary interoperability: a position paper. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 7, 1-15. Available: https://ijsdir.sadl.kuleuven.be/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/281 

  33. Parasie, S. & Dagiral, E. (2013). Data-driven journalism and the public good: "computer-assistedreporters" and "programmer-journalists" in Chicago. New Media & Society, 15(6), 853-871. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812463345 

  34. Ronda-Pupo, G. A. & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962-2008: a co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.948 

  35. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

  36. Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 

  37. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406. 

  38. Small, H. G. (1976). Structural dynamics of scientific literature. International Classification, 3(2), 67-74. 

  39. van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(86), 2579-2605. Available: https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v9/vandermaaten08a.html 

  40. van Raan A. (2019). Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics. In: Glanzel W., Moed H. F., Schmoch U., Thelwall M. (eds), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_10 

  41. White, H. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302 

  42. Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., ... & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 

  43. Zhao, D. & Strotmann, A. (2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070-2086. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20910 

저자의 다른 논문 :

관련 콘텐츠

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

GOLD

오픈액세스 학술지에 출판된 논문

저작권 관리 안내
섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로