图书情报知识 ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (3): 91-103.doi: 10.13366/j.dik.2026.03.091

• 图书、文献与交流 • 上一篇    下一篇

数字人文研究机构学科交叉影响力测度研究

陈柏彤, 王一诺   

  1. 上海大学文化遗产与信息管理学院,上海,200444
  • 出版日期:2026-05-10 发布日期:2026-07-26
  • 通讯作者: 陈柏彤(ORCID: 0000-0002-1470-7272),博士,副教授,研究方向:数据科学与知识发现,Email: baitongchen@shu.edu.cn。
  • 作者简介:王一诺(ORCID: 0009-0005-0856-602X),硕士研究生,研究方向:信息计量,Email: woshiwangqianjin@163.com。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社会科学基金青年项目“基于分布式语义分析的学术创新演化模式研究”(21CTQ037)的研究成果之一。

A Study on Measuring the Interdisciplinary Impact of Digital Humanities Research Institutions

CHEN Baitong, WANG Yinuo   

  1. School of Cultural Heritage and Information Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai, 200444
  • Online:2026-05-10 Published:2026-07-26
  • Contact: Correspondence should be addressed to CHEN Baitong, Email: baitongchen@shu.edu.cn, ORCID: 0000-0002-1470-7272
  • Supported by:
    This is an outcome of the Youth Project "Research on the Evolutionary Patterns of Academic Innovation based on Distributed Semantic Analysis"(21CTQ037)supported by National Social Science Foundation of China.

摘要: [目的/意义]系统分析国内外数字人文研究机构的学科交叉格局,为促进知识创新与学术交流提供依据。[研究设计/方法]融合多样性和影响力两个维度,构建包含学科数量、基尼系数、布里渊指数、机构发文量及篇均被引量的综合指标体系,对数字人文研究机构的学科交叉实践进行综合评估。[结论/发现]数字人文研究整体学科分布存在不均衡性;多样性方面,国内机构学科覆盖度更广,国外机构分布更为均衡,国内外多样性综合水平相近;影响力方面,国内机构具有集中性,国外机构体现离散性。综合得分较高的机构在团队建设与学术交流方面优势明显。[创新/价值]提出面向数字人文研究机构的学科交叉影响力综合测度框架,并从机构差异、特色与建设路径出发,为数字人文学科体系完善与机构发展提供参考。

关键词: 数字人文, 学科交叉, 机构评价, 知识交流

Abstract: [Purpose/Significance] This study systematically analyzes the interdisciplinary impact of digital humanities research institutions, providing a basis for promoting knowledge innovation and academic exchange. [Design/Methodology] This study integrates the dimensions of diversity and impact to construct a comprehensive index system consisting of the number of disciplines, Gini coefficient, Brillouin index, institutional publication volume, and average citations per paper.It conducts a comprehensively assessment of the interdisciplinary practices of digital humanities research institutions. [Findings/Conclusion] The results show that the overall disciplinary distribution of digital humanities research is uneven. In terms of diversity, domestic institutions have broader coverage of disciplines, while foreign institutions are more balanced distributed, with similar overall levels of diversity for both domestic and foreign institutions; in terms of impact, domestic institutions show a concentration, while foreign institutions exhibit a dispersion. Institutions with higher comprehensive scores have significant advantages in team building and academic exchange. [Originality/Value] This study proposes a comprehensive measurement framework for the interdisciplinary impact of digital humanities research institutions, and provides references for the improvement of the digital humanities disciplinary system and the development of institutions from the perspectives of institutional differences, characteristics, and development paths.

Keywords: Digital Humanities, Interdisciplinarity, Institutional evaluation, Knowledge exchange