Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 1141–1157 | Cite as

Identifying the “Ghost City” of domain topics in a keyword semantic space combining citations

  • Kai Hu
  • Kunlun Qi
  • Siluo Yang
  • Shengyu Shen
  • Xiaoqiang Cheng
  • Huayi Wu
  • Jie Zheng
  • Stephen McClure
  • Tianxing Yu
Article
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

As an increasing number of scientific literature dataset are open access, more attention has gravitated to keyword analysis in many scientific fields. Traditional keyword analyses include the frequency based and the network based methods, both providing efficient mining techniques for identifying the representative keywords. The semantic meanings behind the keywords are important for understanding the research content. However, traditional keyword analysis methods pay scant attention to semantic meanings; the network based or frequency based methods as traditionally used, present limited semantic associations among the keywords. Moreover, the ways in which the semantic meanings behind the keywords are associated to the citations are not clear. Thus, we use the Google Word2Vec model to build word vectors and reduce them to a two-dimensional plane in a Voronoi diagram using the t-SNE algorithm, to link meanings with citations. The distance between semantic meanings of keywords in two-dimensional plane are similar to distances in geographical space, thus we introduce a geographic metaphor, “Ghost City” to describe the relationship between semantics and citations for hot topics that have recently become not so hot. Along with “Ghost City” zones, “Always Hot”, “Newly Emerging Hot”, and “Always Silent” areas are classified and mapped, describing the spatial heterogeneity and homogeneity of the semantic distribution of keywords cited in a domain database. Using a collection of “geographical natural hazard” literature datasets, we demonstrate that the proposed method and classification scheme can efficiently provide a unique viewpoint for interpreting the interaction between semantics and the citations, as “Ghost City”, “Always Hot”, “Newly Emerging Hot”, and “Always Silent” areas.

Keywords

Ghost City Semantic space Keyword analysis Word2Vec t-SNE Spatial analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41371370) and National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China (Grant Nos. 41601298, 41501443).

References

  1. Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2006). A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks, 28(4), 466–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Information (International Social Science Council), 22(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, C. (1999). Visualising semantic spaces and author co-citation networks in digital libraries. Information Processing and Management, 35(3), 401–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00068-5.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. He, Q., Chen, B., Pei, J., Qiu, B., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2009). Detecting topic evolution in scientific literature: How can citations help? In Conference on information and knowledge management, 2009 (pp. 957–966).Google Scholar
  7. Hu, K., Qi, K., Guan, Q., Wu, C., Yu, J., Qing, Y., et al. (2017). A scientometric visualization analysis for night-time light remote sensing research from 1991 to 2016. Remote Sensing, 9(8), 802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kang, C., & Qin, K. (2016). Understanding operation behaviors of taxicabs in cities by matrix factorization. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 60, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F., & Flammini, A. (2015). Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7426–7431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373–397.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mane, K. K., & Borner, K. (2004). Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5287–5290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Neural information processing systems, 2013 (pp. 3111–3119).Google Scholar
  14. Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skupin, A. (2004). The world of geography: Visualizing a knowledge domain with cartographic means. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5274–5278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Song, M., Heo, G. E., & Kim, S. Y. (2014). Analyzing topic evolution in bioinformatics: Investigation of dynamics of the field with conference data in DBLP. Scientometrics, 101(1), 397–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1246-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teixeira, A. A. C., Vieira, P. C., & Abreu, A. P. (2016). Sleeping Beauties and their princes in innovation studies. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2186-9.Google Scholar
  19. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van der Maaten, L., & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579–2605.MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.Google Scholar
  22. Wu, Q., Zhang, C., Hong, Q., & Chen, L. (2014). Topic evolution based on LDA and HMM and its application in stem cell research. Journal of Information Science, 40(5), 611–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xie, P. (2015). Study of international anticancer research trends via co-word and document co-citation visualization analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yan, E. (2014). Research dynamics: Measuring the continuity and popularity of research topics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yan, E., Ding, Y., Milojević, S., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2012). Topics in dynamic research communities: An exploratory study for the field of information retrieval. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 140–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 132–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang, F., Zhu, X., Guo, W., Ye, X., Hu, T., & Huang, L. (2016). Analyzing urban human mobility patterns through a thematic model at a finer scale. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(6), 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zheng, J., Gong, J., Li, R., Hu, K., Wu, H., & Yang, S. (2017). Community evolution analysis based on co-author network: A case study of academic communities of the journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2515-7.Google Scholar
  29. Zhou, D., Ji, X., Zha, H., & Giles, C. L. (2006). Topic evolution and social interactions: How authors effect research. In Conference on information and knowledge management, 2006 (pp. 248–257).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote SensingWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center of Geospatial TechnologyWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  3. 3.Faculty of Information EngineeringChina University of Geosciences (Wuhan)WuhanChina
  4. 4.School of Information ManagementWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  5. 5.Soil and Water Conservation DepartmentYangtze River Scientific Research InstituteWuhanChina
  6. 6.Faculty of Resources and Environmental ScienceHubei UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations