CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpreting maps of science using citation context sentiments: a preliminary investigation

Small, Henry·2011·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0349-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-011-0349-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Argamon, S., Dodick, J., & Chase, P. (2008). Language use reflects scientific methodology: A corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articles. Scientometrics, 75(2), 203–238. · DOI
  2. Börner, K., Chen, C. M., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179–255. · DOI
  3. Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331. · DOI
  4. Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 61(7), 1386–1409. · DOI
  5. Cozzens, S. E. (1985). Comparing the sciences: Citation context analysis of papers from neurophramacology and the sociology of science. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 127–153. · DOI
  6. Finney, B. (1979). The reference characteristics of scientific texts. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The City University of London.
  7. Harwood, N. (2009). An interview based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497–518. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. · DOI
  9. Khan, K., Baharudin, B.B., Khan, A. & Faxal-e-Malik. (2009). Mining opinion from text documents: a survey. In 2009 3rd IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (pp. 194–199). New York: IEEE.
  10. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60(3), 455–476. · DOI
  11. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  12. Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since structure, Chap. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
  14. Losee, J. (1972). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. London: Oxford University Press.
  15. Moravcsik, M., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5, 86–92. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Paquot, M., & Bestgen, Y. (2009). Distinctive words in academic writing: A comparison of three statistical tests for keyword extraction. Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse, 68, 247–269. · DOI
  17. Schneider, J. W. (2006). Concept symbols revisited: Naming clusters by parsing and filtering of noun phrases from citation contexts of concept symbols. Scientometrics, 68(3), 573–593. · DOI
  18. Small, H. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8, 237–340. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Small, H. (1986). Synthesis of specialty narratives from co-citation clusters. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(3), 97–110. · DOI
  20. Small, H. (2010). Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: Co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics, 83, 835–849. · DOI
  21. Small, H., & Upham, P. (2009). Citation structure of an emerging research area on the verge of application. Scientometrics, 79(2), 365–375. · DOI
  22. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genera analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Teufel, S. (2010). The structure of scientific articles: Applications to citation indexing and summarization. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
  24. Verlic, M., Stiglic, G., Kocbek, S. & Kokol, P. (2008). Sentiment in science: a case study of CBMS contributions in years 2003 to 2007. In: 21st IEEE International Symposium on Computer Based Medical Systems (pp. 138–143). New York: IEEE.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 82

Metadata

Authors
Small, H.
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-02-10
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
373-388
ISSN
  • 0138-9130
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1007/s11192-011-0349-2
Cited by
82
References
3
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review