跨学科的可疑作者实践:使用进化概念分析构建多学科同义词典

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Devon H. Whetstone, Laura E. Ridenour, Heather Moulaison-Sandy
{"title":"跨学科的可疑作者实践:使用进化概念分析构建多学科同义词典","authors":"Devon H. Whetstone,&nbsp;Laura E. Ridenour,&nbsp;Heather Moulaison-Sandy","doi":"10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The culture surrounding authorship practices differs from discipline to discipline, with the potential for inconsistent terminology across disciplines to hamper comprehension in interdisciplinary conversations. To address this problem, an interdisciplinary corpus of research literature on the topic of questionable authorship practices was used to create a multidisciplinary thesaurus. This process used Evolutionary Concept Analysis (ECA) as mediated through MAXQDA. Problems of synonymy and polysemy are addressed using ECA which identifies and subsequently analyzes terms used to denote questionable authorship practices as well as their synonyms, relevant uses, attributes, references, antecedents, and consequences. The value is two-fold: first, this addresses the gap in the literature in terms of the identification, analysis, and organization of a set of interdisciplinary terms relating to questionable authorship practices; second, it presents a novel methodological approach to thesaurus construction from a multidisciplinary corpus through using ECA.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47618,"journal":{"name":"Library & Information Science Research","volume":"44 4","pages":"Article 101201"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Questionable authorship practices across the disciplines: Building a multidisciplinary thesaurus using evolutionary concept analysis\",\"authors\":\"Devon H. Whetstone,&nbsp;Laura E. Ridenour,&nbsp;Heather Moulaison-Sandy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The culture surrounding authorship practices differs from discipline to discipline, with the potential for inconsistent terminology across disciplines to hamper comprehension in interdisciplinary conversations. To address this problem, an interdisciplinary corpus of research literature on the topic of questionable authorship practices was used to create a multidisciplinary thesaurus. This process used Evolutionary Concept Analysis (ECA) as mediated through MAXQDA. Problems of synonymy and polysemy are addressed using ECA which identifies and subsequently analyzes terms used to denote questionable authorship practices as well as their synonyms, relevant uses, attributes, references, antecedents, and consequences. The value is two-fold: first, this addresses the gap in the literature in terms of the identification, analysis, and organization of a set of interdisciplinary terms relating to questionable authorship practices; second, it presents a novel methodological approach to thesaurus construction from a multidisciplinary corpus through using ECA.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Library & Information Science Research\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 101201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Library & Information Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740818822000640\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Library & Information Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740818822000640","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

围绕作者身份实践的文化因学科而异,不同学科之间的术语可能不一致,从而妨碍跨学科对话中的理解。为了解决这个问题,一个关于可疑作者实践主题的研究文献的跨学科语料库被用来创建一个多学科的词库。该过程使用进化概念分析(ECA)作为介导的MAXQDA。使用ECA识别并随后分析用于表示可疑作者实践的术语以及它们的同义词、相关用法、属性、参考、先行词和后果的同义词和多义问题。其价值是双重的:首先,这解决了在识别、分析和组织一组与可疑作者实践相关的跨学科术语方面的文献差距;其次,它提出了一种新的方法方法,通过使用ECA从多学科语料库建设同义词典。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Questionable authorship practices across the disciplines: Building a multidisciplinary thesaurus using evolutionary concept analysis

The culture surrounding authorship practices differs from discipline to discipline, with the potential for inconsistent terminology across disciplines to hamper comprehension in interdisciplinary conversations. To address this problem, an interdisciplinary corpus of research literature on the topic of questionable authorship practices was used to create a multidisciplinary thesaurus. This process used Evolutionary Concept Analysis (ECA) as mediated through MAXQDA. Problems of synonymy and polysemy are addressed using ECA which identifies and subsequently analyzes terms used to denote questionable authorship practices as well as their synonyms, relevant uses, attributes, references, antecedents, and consequences. The value is two-fold: first, this addresses the gap in the literature in terms of the identification, analysis, and organization of a set of interdisciplinary terms relating to questionable authorship practices; second, it presents a novel methodological approach to thesaurus construction from a multidisciplinary corpus through using ECA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Library & Information Science Research
Library & Information Science Research INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Library & Information Science Research, a cross-disciplinary and refereed journal, focuses on the research process in library and information science as well as research findings and, where applicable, their practical applications and significance. All papers are subject to a double-blind reviewing process.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信