You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are lots of "build a directed graph of bibliographic citations" tools.
If you can find a graph of relationships among papers using equations and that equation graph is better than bibliographic citation networks, that would be potentially useful to people who currently use citation-based graphs.
For example, a relatively "weak" correlation of math between two papers is the following. If paper1 has a+b and paper2 has a+b then place edge between those two papers. (That edge is weak because the use of the two equations might be a coincidence.)
For a slightly stronger correlation are there papers where a+b is used and there's a nearby citation to a bibliographic entry to a paper that also has the same a+b? That would be a stronger edge.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There are lots of "build a directed graph of bibliographic citations" tools.
If you can find a graph of relationships among papers using equations and that equation graph is better than bibliographic citation networks, that would be potentially useful to people who currently use citation-based graphs.
For example, a relatively "weak" correlation of math between two papers is the following. If paper1 has
a+b
and paper2 hasa+b
then place edge between those two papers. (That edge is weak because the use of the two equations might be a coincidence.)For a slightly stronger correlation are there papers where
a+b
is used and there's a nearby citation to a bibliographic entry to a paper that also has the samea+b
? That would be a stronger edge.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: