4.7 Article

Topic modeling in density functional theory on citations of condensed matter electronic structure packages

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38551-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increasing number of scientific papers, it becomes difficult for researchers to keep up with recent articles in their field. In this study, a new unsupervised method using topic modeling is proposed to classify publications, with a focus on Density Functional Theory (DFT). By analyzing word similarity, the method attributes each publication to a specific topic and provides interesting observations on connections between topics and publishers, journals, country or year of publication. This approach is general and can be applied to analyze publication and citation trends in other areas of study beyond DFT.
With an increasing number of new scientific papers being released, it becomes harder for researchers to be aware of recent articles in their field of study. Accurately classifying papers is a first step in the direction of personalized catering and easy access to research of interest. The field of Density Functional Theory (DFT) in particular is a good example of a methodology used in very different studies, and interconnected disciplines, which has a very strong community publishing many research articles. We devise a new unsupervised method for classifying publications, based on topic modeling, and use a DFT-related selection of documents as a use case. We first create topics from word analysis and clustering of the abstracts from the publications, then attribute each publication/paper to a topic based on word similarity. We then make interesting observations by analyzing connections between the topics and publishers, journals, country or year of publication. The proposed approach is general, and can be applied to analyze publication and citation trends in other areas of study, beyond the field of Density Function Theory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据