arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0708.1150

A Practical Ontology for the Large-Scale Modeling of Scholarly Artifacts and their Usage

Marko A. Rodriguez·Johah Bollen·Herbert Van de Sompel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The large-scale analysis of scholarly artifact usage is constrained primarily by current practices in usage data archiving, privacy issues concerned with the dissemination of usage data, and the lack of a practical ontology for modeling the usage domain. As a remedy to the third constraint, this article presents a scholarly ontology that was engineered to represent those classes for which large-scale bibliographic and usage data exists, supports usage research, and whose instantiation is scalable to the order of 50 million articles along with their associated artifacts (e.g. authors and journals) and an accompanying 1 billion usage events. The real world instantiation of the presented abstract ontology is a semantic network model of the scholarly community which lends the scholarly process to statistical analysis and computational support. We present the ontology, discuss its instantiation, and provide some example inference rules for calculating various scholarly artifact metrics.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marko A. Rodriguez, Johah Bollen, Herbert Van de Sompel. 2007-08-08. A Practical Ontology for the Large-Scale Modeling of Scholarly Artifacts and their Usage. https://doi.org/10.1145/1255175.1255229

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

General Classification for Digital Knowledge: Algorithm, Identifiers and a First Benchmark

Digital libraries and knowledge graphs need a way to organize very large collections so that related works are close and any work is quick to reach. The classifications libraries inherited for this, such as LCC and DDC, are maintained by editorial staff, are partly closed, and were not built against a stated, measurable objective. We propose the opposite: a general classification that is fitted, under the constraints that make a classification usable on a shelf or in a browse list, to the same quantity that a companion survey and benchmark (Awad, 2026) ranks existing schemes by. The objective is J = D + 0.005 N, where D is the normalized Dasgupta cost of the class tree on a fixed similarity graph (Dasgupta, 2016) and N is an expected navigation cost in bits with a per-level charge. Two constraints are hard: every class is a contiguous run of one fixed shelf order (the optimal-alphabetic-tree constraint of Hu and Tucker, 1971), and new works are filed by splitting leaf classes only, so that every existing class keeps its code, label and parent. On a corpus of 10,000 arXiv papers the fitted prototype has 110 hand-labelled classes and reaches cost 0.1722 in sample (average linkage 0.1518; arXiv's own categories 0.3333; the best existing scheme reached through the same lexical classifier 0.6414, from the survey). Filing 500 library books as new works created 16 classes and changed no existing identifier. Fit, filing and scoring share one embedding: the held-out skill of 0.922 falls to 0.896 when the same fit is scored on the graphs of the two other models, and on books the average falls from 0.806 to 0.731. The scheme has also seen only arXiv, and labels for inserted classes are weak. We state those limits plainly, release the scheme as CC0 open data, and ask whether a learned, open, order-preserving classification can become a general one.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Quantifying research uniqueness with Unbalanced Optimal Transport: Case studies of ten leading universities in neuroscience

Research evaluation has developed around quantity, citation impact and, more recently, the accumulation of research excellence, but these dimensions remain largely dependent on citations, which describe how research is received rather than what it contains. We propose uniqueness as a complementary dimension and measure it with the Research Uniqueness Index (RUI), which asks how far a university's research sits from what is typical in its field, using no citations but the content of the research itself. Each researcher is represented by an embedding of their abstracts, and an unbalanced version of Optimal Transport returns the share of that work which cannot be matched into a random sample of same-field researchers, the standard population; that unmatched share is the score. Because every researcher is scored, a university is a distribution rather than one number, and we treat that distribution as the indicator: it shows whether uniqueness is spread across an institution or concentrated in a few groups. Quantiles summarise it and, being quantiles, do not reward size. Since uniqueness is defined only relative to a field, we demonstrate the index within one, neuroscience (Scopus, 2021-2025; 9,861 reference researchers). All ten universities studied sit well above the standard (RUI_median 0.40-0.53 versus 0.27) and five specialised institutes higher still (0.57-0.73), the most unique work often confined to a narrow niche that the same scores name. RUI is uncorrelated with citation impact, and a controlled test confirms that it tracks displacement from the field rather than topical concentration; results are robust to an alternative embedding and replicate in computer science and economics. The index is not intended as a league table: the gap above the standard and the researcher-level niche structure are stable, whereas the order among adjacent universities is not.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Interpreting Paper-to-Patent Citations in AI-Related PMC Articles

Paper-to-patent citations connect scientific and technological documents, but their interpretability depends on how patents are used in the citing text. This study examines citation contexts and paper-level outcome associations in AI-related articles in PubMed Central (PMC). Screening 189,073 articles identified 746 with explicitly tagged patent references (0.395%), including 713 with 1,544 identifiable in-text patent-citation instances. Three large language models classified these instances by represented content, motivation, textual position, and evaluative stance. Regression models examined associations among these dimensions, and propensity-score-matched regressions compared patent-citing papers with XML-screened controls. Background-oriented citations were predominantly neutral and introductory, whereas adoption-oriented citations were more closely associated with methodological positions and supportive evaluations. These patterns suggest heuristic configurations of contextualization, operationalization, and problematization, although classification overlap and exclusion of rare categories limit their interpretation. In matched samples, the patent-citing indicator was associated with lower scholarly-citation measures and more citations received from patents. These associations are observational, not causal. Together, these findings show that paper-to-patent citations encode heterogeneous forms of engagement with patented technology and should be interpreted as selective bibliographic signals rather than direct indicators of technology-to-science knowledge transfer or research value.

cs.DL↗