Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation

Uren, Victoria; Shum, Simon Buckingham; Bachler, Michelle; Li, Gangmin

doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.004

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…al [21] as the most interesting one in terms of similarity with our research. Their set contains tools for creating, visualizing and searching claims in scholarly documents (represented as HTML files) using a central knowledge server.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 83%

SALT: Weaving the Claim Web

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we present a solution for "weaving the claim web", i.e. the creation of knowledge networks via so-called claims stated in scientific publications created with the SALT (Semantically Annotated L A T E X) framework. To attain this objective, we provide support for claim identification, evolved the appropriate ontologies and defined a claim citation and reference mechanism. We also describe a prototypical claim search engine, which allows to reference to existing claims and hence, weave the web. Finally, we performed a small-scale evaluation of the authoring framework with a quite promising outcome.

show abstract

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 83%

SALT: Weaving the Claim Web

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These have been documented elsewhere (Buckingham Shum 2008), and prior work has conducted user studies (Uren et al 2006;Sereno et al 2007). …”

Section: What Visualizations and Abstractions Can Help To Monitor Andmentioning

confidence: 78%

Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study

Liddo

Sándor

Shum

2011

Comput Supported Coop Work

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose the concept of Contested Collective Intelligence (CCI) as a distinctive subset of the broader Collective Intelligence design space. CCI is relevant to the many organizational contexts in which it is important to work with contested knowledge, for instance, due to different intellectual traditions, competing organizational objectives, information overload or ambiguous environmental signals. The CCI challenge is to design sociotechnical infrastructures to augment such organizational capability. Since documents are often the starting points for contested discourse, and discourse markers provide a powerful cue to the presence of claims, contrasting ideas and argumentation, discourse and rhetoric provide an annotation focus in our approach to CCI. Research in sensemaking, computer--supported discourse and rhetorical text analysis motivate a conceptual framework for the combined human and machine annotation of texts with this specific focus. This conception is explored through two tools: a social--semantic web application for human annotation and knowledge mapping (Cohere), plus the discourse analysis component in a textual analysis software tool (Xerox Incremental Parser: XIP). As a step towards an integrated platform, we report a case study in which a document corpus underwent independent human and machine analysis, providing quantitative and qualitative insight into their respective contributions. A promising finding is that significant contributions were signalled by authors via explicit rhetorical moves, which both human analysts and XIP could readily identify. Since working with contested knowledge is at the heart of CCI, the evidence that automatic detection of contrasting ideas in texts is possible through rhetorical discourse analysis is progress towards the effective use of automatic discourse analysis in the CCI framework. Contested Collective Intelligence 2

show abstract

“…Some attention has also been paid to revealing ''narratives of science'' through networks between publications (Cronin 2001) by semi-quantitatively summarizing the position of a particular paper in its research domain, its arguments and claims in relation to cited works, or its relationships with other domains of science (c.f. Uren et al 2006). With the increasing sophistication and ability to personalize the web experience with Web 2.0 technologies it is clear that bibliography management can do better to support the act of doing research rather than just the task of compiling bibliographic entries for a printed journal typical of most popular software, e.g.…”

Section: The Live Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making journal articles ‘live’: turning academic writing into scientific dialog

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Web 2.0 services and social networking offer possibilities to transform academic publishing to facilitate scientific dialogue. We present 'The Live Paper' in this editorial as a concept to consider how to leverage existing web technologies to produce rich, omnidirectional, and interactive narratives on research. Following the format of a traditional research report we describe and discuss how to enrich research reports utilizing various types of analytical tools, data, and web services in a published paper embedded in evolving scientific discourse. We also consider how the live papers would influence the practice, culture, and economy of academic research. We conclude that geospatial researchers have an opportunity to lead this development towards richer and more open ways of communicating our findings. The technology and infrastructure to do so exist today, but several barriers remain.

show abstract

Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation

Cited by 48 publications

References 25 publications

SALT: Weaving the Claim Web

SALT: Weaving the Claim Web

Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study

Making journal articles ‘live’: turning academic writing into scientific dialog

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About