Abstract
Clusters of normalized title-words in two sets of patent data in the food-sector (from 1985 and 1989, respectively) are analyzed in terms of their underlying document and word structures. The clusters were generated by using the system LEXIMAPPE of the Paris School of Mines. Both input and output data were kindly made available for validation purposes. Analysis of the data shows that the “centrality” and the “density” of the clusters produced by LEXIMAPPE are primarily dependent on the number of word occurrences in the corresponding parts of the input matrix. While the clusters are kept approximately equal in terms of the number of words (with a maximum of 10), they vary widely in terms of the number of word occurrences in the underlying document sets. “Centrality” and “density” vary correspondingly. The contribution of the smallest cluster to the reduction of uncertainty in the prediction of the document structure is even smaller than that of 77 (other) single words. In the dynamic analysis, I found significant stability where LEXIMAPPE indicated major changes. However, like every clustering algorithm LEXIMAPPE is based on specific assumptions which may lead to specific results that cannot be simulated by using other methods. Researchers who base their results on LEXIMAPPE should be aware of the peculiarities specific to this system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
W.A. Turner, G. Chartron, F. Laville, B. Michelet, Packaging Information for Peer Review: New Co-Word Analysis Techniques, in:A.F.J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, etc., 1988.
M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London, 1986.
M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, F. Laville, Co-Word Analysis as a Tool for Rescribing the Network of Interactions between Basic and Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemistry,Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 155–205.
J. Law, S. Bauin, J.-P. Courtial, J. Whittaker, Policy and the mapping of scientific change: a co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 251–264;J.-P. Courtial, J. Law, A co-word study of artificial intelligence,Social Studies of Science, 19 (1989) 301–311.
L. Leydesdorff, Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization,Research Policy, 18 (1989) 209–223. See also:L. Leydesdorff, In search of epistemic networds,Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 75–110.
J. Whittaker, Keywords versus titles as data for co-word analysis,Social Studies of Science, 19 (1989) 473–496. See also:L. Leydesdorff, Some methodological guidelines for the interpretation of scientometric mappings,R & D Evaluation Newsletter (1989) No. 2, 4–7.
J.-P. Courtial, V. Rabeharisoa, A. Sigogneau, Les réseaux de la science et de la technologie associés par les brevets, manuscript, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris;J.-P. Courtial, A. Sigogneau, V. Rabeharisoa, Elaboration d'une méthode pour identifier les tendances recentes de la recherche et de la technologie dans un domaine industriel: le cas de l'agroalimentaire, Rapport Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Juillet 1990.
L. Leydesdorff, Relations among science indicators or more generally among anything one might wish to count about texts. I. The static model,Scientometrics, 18 (1990) 281–307;L. Leydesdorff, Relations among science indicators or more generally predictions on the basis of anything one might know about texts, II. The dynamics of science,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 271–296;L. Leydesdorff, The prediction of science indicators using information theory,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 297–324;L. Leydesdorff,The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory, Social Network, 13 (1991) 301–345.
M. Callon et al.,op. cit. note 3.. Obviously, theequivalence index is the square of the well-knownSalton index.
B. Everitt,Cluster Analysis, Social Science Research Council, Heinemann, London, etc., 1974. See also:L. Leydesdorff, Various methods for the mapping of science,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 295–324.
A similar procedure is nowadays used by ISI in co-citation cluster mapping to prevent “chaining”, called “variable level clustering.”
A. Rip, J.-P. Courtial, Co-word maps of biotechnology,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400, note 18;R. Zaal,A Quantitative Approach to the Semantic Organization of Text, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1988;Leydesdorff 1991,op. cit., note 5.
R.S. Burt,Towards a Structuralist Theory of Action, Academic Press, New York, etc., 1982.
Callon interprets this as indicating that “the network is democratic” (personal communication). In addition to the problem implied in this metaphor, it is of course unthinkable that if two “actors” (“actants”?) were to attach themselves to an existing cluster exclusively, that mere fact would move the cluster to the top of the hierarchy. The same notion is articulated byCourtial et al. when he states: “In effect, what is at the base of the development of scientific knowledge is the possibility for multiple partners, each with their own appropriate know-how and technology (for example, mastering reaction catalysts in polymerization), to “graft” themselves onto a strategic point of the network, and then to transform it.J.-P. Courtial, B. Michelet, A mathematical model of development in a research field,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 127–141.
Courtial et al.,op. cit., note 14..
Callon et al.,op. cit. note 3..
Courtial et al.,op. cit., note 7. Les réseaux de la science et de la technologie associés par les brevets, manuscript, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris;J.-P. Courtial, A. Sigogneau, V. Rabeharisoa, Elaboration d'une méthode pour identifier les tendances recentes de la recherche et de la technologie dans un domaine industriel: le cas de l'agroalimentaire, Rapport Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Juillet 1990.
See also:Leydesdorff 1990,op. cit., note 8..
Callon et al.,op. cit., note 3..
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.
Courtial et al.,op. cit. note 7. Les réseaux de la science et de la technologie associés par les brevets, manuscript, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris;J.-P. Courtial, A. Sigogneau, V. Rabeharisoa, Elaboration d'une méthode pour identifier les tendances recentes de la recherche et de la technologie dans un domaine industriel: le cas de l'agroalimentaire, Rapport Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Juillet 1990.
Leydesdorff,op. cit., note 8.
Ibid..
Courtial emphasizes that the clusters should not be given a meaning; they represent only network structures and network development. The clusters should be understood statistically. The attached words are exclusively used to distinguish them among each other: “All one can do is use a statistical analysis of the morphology of the network to designate its ‘sites’.” (Courtial et al.,op. cit. note 14, p. 131).
See also:J.-P. Courtial, Qualitative models, quantitative tools and network analysis,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 527–534.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leydesdorff, L. A validation study of “LEXIMAPPE”. Scientometrics 25, 295–312 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02028087
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02028087