Relations among science indicators or more generally among anything one might wish to count about texts | Scientometrics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Relations among science indicators or more generally among anything one might wish to count about texts

I. The static model

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a series of two articles, I will show that the expected information content of distributions provides us with a straightforward means to develop a static and a dynamic model for the development of the sciences. In the first study, I analyze how knowledge about one indicator (nominal variable) can reduce our uncertainty in the prediction of other indicators, and how relations across various levels of aggregation can be assessed. In the second study, I will address the problem of the use of indicators and relations among them for predictions and reconstructions.

I will use the occurrences of words in texts as the prime nominal variable which can be easily counted by the machine. However, I will generalize the models for the multi-variate case, in which any indicator or nominal variable can be assessed in terms of its validity in relation to other indicators and its value for predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. Theil,Statistical Decomposition Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam-London, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The informationh in bits received by a message in terms of the probabilityp that prevailed prior to the arrival of the message is equal to-log p. (C. H. Shannon, A Mathematical Theory of Communication,Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (1948) 379–423, and 623–656.)

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Attneave,Applications of Information Theory to Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. Leydesdorff, Words and cowords as indicators of intellectual organization,Research Policy, 18 (1989) 209–223;O. Amsterdamska, L. Leydesdorff, Citations: Indicators of Significance?,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 449–471. See also:L. Leydesdorff, O. Amsterdamska, “Dimensions of Citation Analysis,”Science, Technology and Human Values (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Searches were performed on December 8, 1988.

  6. Leydesdorff, Amsterdamska, 1988.Op. cit., note 5. Searches were performed on December 8, 1988.

  7. Searches were also performed on December 8, 1988.

  8. Words occurring in subheadings, such as “Introduction”, “Methods,”, “Results,” and “Discussion”, were also excluded, since the subheadings are repeated in the STN-file in each paragraph belonging to that section.

  9. H=H o+Q s H s, whichQ s is the weighing of the contribution of the entropy of each of the sections, and Ho is the between-sections entropy.

  10. L. Leydesdorff. “In Search of Epistemic Networks”,Social Studies of Science (forthcoming)

  11. Ibid. L. Leydesdorff. “In Search of Epistemic Networks,”Social Studies of Science (forthcoming)

  12. See also:Theil, 1972., Chapter 3.

    Google Scholar 

  13. . pp. 157f.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K.E. Studer, D.E. Chubin,The Cancer Mision. Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1980;M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, W.A. Turner, S. Bauin, From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis,Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 191–235;L. Leydesdorff, The Development of frames of reference,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 103–125;W. Shrum, N. Mullins, Network Analysis in the Study of Science and Technology, in:A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W.S. Robinson, Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals,American Sociological Review, 15 (1950) 351–357.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See, for example:L.I. Langbein, A.J. Lichtman,Ecological Inference, Quantitative Application in the Social Sciences Nr. 07-010, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1979;P. Van den Eeden, H.J.M. Huttner,Multilevel Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A weighted average is appropriate since the entropy is additive. (Theil, 1972.. p. 18.)

    Google Scholar 

  18. . p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See also:G. Salton, M.J. McGill,Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, Auckland, etc., 1983, 63ff.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds.),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, MacMillan, London, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Mowery, N. Rosenberg, The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies,Research Policy, 8 (1979) 102–153.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Leydesdorff, The relations bBetween qualitative theory and scientometric methods in S&T-studies. Introduction to the Topical Issue,Scientometrics, 15 (1989), 333–347.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Leydesdorff

Authors
  1. L. Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L. Relations among science indicators or more generally among anything one might wish to count about texts. Scientometrics 18, 281–307 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017766

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017766

Keywords

Search

Navigation