发表机构
Technische Universität Berlin; Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften（柏林工业大学; 柏林-勃兰登堡科学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究提出一种比较方法，通过四项度量追踪五十位作者在广义相对论领域中的知识轨迹，发现词汇与引用结构常呈现时间错位，为历史研究提供新视角。
AI 中文摘要
历史学家已在领域层面并通过个体职业生涯重建了二十世纪广义相对论与引力（GRG）的转型，但连接这些尺度需要一种将研究者与随时间变化的领域进行比较的方法。我们开发了这样一种比较方法，将研究者的出版物和参考文献与来自相同、更早和更晚两年期的GRG领域文献进行对照。基于我们早前两项案例研究（arXiv:2501.00391）中的自有词汇和嵌入密度估计，我们将分析扩展到NASA/ADS语料库中约180,000条GRG记录（1911年至2000年）中发表量最多的五十位作者，并增加了两项基于引用的度量：引用词汇和引用身份。这四项度量将作者的书面语言、引用文献、语义邻域和引用权威配置与周围领域进行比较。早前的案例表明，更紧密的领域词汇对齐伴随着更密集的语义邻域。在五十位作者中，这一关系仅部分成立。书面词汇和引用词汇往往同步变化，通常随着领域转向天体物理和宇宙学研究而类似于后来的GRG文献。语义邻域更常位于领域出版物在更早时期集中的地方，而共被引模式则没有单一的时间方向，且两项引用度量常常将同一研究者置于不同位置，尽管它们基于相同的参考文献列表。因此，个体轨迹可以将与后来领域状态相关的词汇与较旧的语义或引用结构相结合，这些分歧案例标志着值得更深入历史调查的模式。该方法可推广到具有合理语料库边界以及文本、参考文献和消歧作者身份充分覆盖的其他领域。
英文摘要
Historians have reconstructed the twentieth-century transformation of general relativity and gravitation (GRG) at the field level and through individual careers, but connecting these scales requires a way to compare researchers with the changing field over time. We develop such a comparison, setting a researcher's publications and references against GRG field literature from the same, earlier, and later two-year periods. Building on Own Vocabulary and Embedding Density Estimation from our earlier two-case study (arXiv:2501.00391), we extend the analysis to the fifty most-published authors in a NASA/ADS corpus of about 180,000 GRG records (1911 to 2000) and add two citation-based measures, Referenced Vocabulary and Citation Identity. The four measures compare an author's written language, cited literature, semantic neighbourhood, and cited-authority configuration with the surrounding field. The earlier cases suggested that closer field-vocabulary alignment accompanies a denser semantic neighbourhood. Across the fifty authors this holds only partially. Written and cited vocabularies tend to move together, usually resembling later GRG literature as the field turned towards astrophysical and cosmological research. Semantic neighbourhoods more often lie where the field's publications were concentrated in earlier periods, while co-citation patterns follow no single temporal direction, and the two citation measures frequently place the same researcher differently despite drawing on identical reference lists. Individual trajectories can thus combine vocabulary tied to later field states with older semantic or citation structures, and these divergent cases mark patterns for closer historical investigation. The approach transfers to other fields with defensible corpus boundaries and adequate coverage of texts, references, and disambiguated author identities.
Comments43 pages including Supplementary Material (11+1 figures, 4+6 tables). Submitted to Frontiers in Complex Systems
