BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Krzysztof Suchecki

Krzysztof Suchecki contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.soc-phDigital LibrariesInformation RetrievalSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

Evolution of Wikipedia's Category Structure

Wikipedia, as a social phenomenon of collaborative knowledge creating, has been studied extensively from various points of views. The category system of Wikipedia, introduced in 2004, has attracted relatively little attention. In this study, we focus on the documentation of knowledge, and the transformation of this documentation with time. We take Wikipedia as a proxy for knowledge in general and its category system as an aspect of the structure of this knowledge. We investigate the evolution of the category structure of the English Wikipedia from its birth in 2004 to 2008. We treat the category system as if it is a hierarchical Knowledge Organization System, capturing the changes in the distributions of the top categories. We investigate how the clustering of articles, defined by the category system, matches the direct link network between the articles and show how it changes over time. We find the Wikipedia category network mostly stable, but with occasional reorganization. We show that the clustering matches the link structure quite well, except short periods preceding the reorganizations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

The evolution of classification systems: Ontogeny of the UDC

To classify is to put things in meaningful groups, but the criteria for doing so can be problematic. Study of evolution of classification includes ontogenetic analysis of change in classification over time. We present an empirical analysis of the UDC over the entire period of its development. We demonstrate stability in main classes, with major change driven by 20th century scientific developments. But we also demonstrate a vast increase in the complexity of auxiliaries. This study illustrates an alternative to Tennis' "scheme-versioning" method.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Need to categorize: A comparative look at the categories of the Universal Decimal Classification system (UDC) and Wikipedia

This study analyzes the differences between the category structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) system (which is one of the widely used library classification systems in Europe) and Wikipedia. In particular, we compare the emerging structure of category-links to the structure of classes in the UDC. With this comparison we would like to scrutinize the question of how do knowledge maps of the same domain differ when they are created socially (i.e. Wikipedia) as opposed to when they are created formally (UDC) using classificatio theory. As a case study, we focus on the category of "Arts".

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Highly connected - a recipe for success

In this paper, we tackle the problem of innovation spreading from a modeling point of view. We consider a networked system of individuals, with a competition between two groups. We show its relation to the innovation spreading issues. We introduce an abstract model and show how it can be interpreted in this framework, as well as what conclusions we can draw form it. We further explain how model-derived conclusions can help to investigate the original problem, as well as other, similar problems. The model is an agent-based model assuming simple binary attributes of those agents. It uses a majority dynamics (Ising model to be exact), meaning that individuals attempt to be similar to the majority of their peers, barring the occasional purely individual decisions that are modeled as random. We show that this simplistic model can be related to the decision-making during innovation adoption processes. The majority dynamics for the model mean that when a dominant attribute, representing an existing practice or solution, is already established, it will persists in the system. We show however, that in a two group competition, a smaller group that represents innovation users can still convince the larger group, if it has high self-support. We argue that this conclusion, while drawn from a simple model, can be applied to real cases of innovation spreading. We also show that the model could be interpreted in different ways, allowing different problems to profit from our conclusions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access