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

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.

[1]  Hiroyuki Kitagawa,et al.  Detecting Topic Evolutions in Bibliographic Databases Exploiting Citations , 2016, European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases.

[2]  André Skupin,et al.  The world of geography: Visualizing a knowledge domain with cartographic means , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[4]  Kai Hu,et al.  A Scientometric Visualization Analysis for Night-Time Light Remote Sensing Research from 1991 to 2016 , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[5]  Jian Pei,et al.  Detecting topic evolution in scientific literature: how can citations help? , 2009, CIKM.

[6]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Xiang Ji,et al.  Topic evolution and social interactions: how authors effect research , 2006, CIKM '06.

[8]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualising Semantic Spaces and Author Co-Citation Networks in Digital Libraries , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[9]  M. Callon,et al.  From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis , 1983 .

[10]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[11]  Wei Guo,et al.  Analyzing Urban Human Mobility Patterns through a Thematic Model at a Finer Scale , 2016, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[12]  Qingqi Hong,et al.  Topic evolution based on LDA and HMM and its application in stem cell research , 2014, J. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[14]  Pedro Cosme Vieira,et al.  Sleeping Beauties and their princes in innovation studies , 2017, Scientometrics.

[15]  Dietmar Wolfram,et al.  Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006-2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[16]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[18]  M. M. Kessler Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[19]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Visualizing Data using t-SNE , 2008 .

[20]  K. Börner,et al.  Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[22]  Rui Li,et al.  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” , 2017, Scientometrics.

[23]  Ping Xie Study of international anticancer research trends via co-word and document co-citation visualization analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[24]  Qing Ke,et al.  Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Min Song,et al.  Analyzing topic evolution in bioinformatics: investigation of dynamics of the field with conference data in DBLP , 2014, Scientometrics.

[26]  Chaogui Kang,et al.  Understanding operation behaviors of taxicabs in cities by matrix factorization , 2016, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[27]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[28]  Erjia Yan,et al.  Research dynamics: Measuring the continuity and popularity of research topics , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[29]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Topics in dynamic research communities: An exploratory study for the field of information retrieval , 2012, J. Informetrics.