That is cool, although it took me some effort to find a scale to view it at such that the entire useful part of the map fitted on my screen and the main category headings were legible. Loading it into the GIMP and having it display it at 33% scale on a 1600x1200 monitor just about manages both, but there's not much margin for error and I think it would be actually unusable on a smaller display. Probably better to print it out!
Most of the topology makes reasonable sense given a moment's thought, but I confess I can't immediately see the reason for the strong ties between social sciences and computer science. I suppose there might be some connection in the area of, say, analysing software engineering methodologies, but I wouldn't have expected it to be that significant.
Computer Science <---> AI <---> Psychology ? When I was looking into doing a PhD after my degree, a lot of the most interesting AI-related ones were in Psychology departments rather than CS.
That'd certainly explain the link between computer science and brain research, but the one between CS and social sciences is entirely separate and rather larger. I'm still puzzled.
(I tried zooming in to read the detailed keywords in the hope that they'd help, but gave up after I had to turn my head upside down too many times :-)
a) game theory b) economists using computers for statistical number-crunching. c) Terms that happen to crop up in both areas, with different meanings. 'regression', 'bootstrap' ;)
Not sure about (c). If I read the blurb right, the links are because some actual paper cites both the papers at the ends of the links. So it doesn't seem plausible that a terminological confusion could give rise to bogus links, unless it confused the author of the paper that cited both, which I suppose might conceivably happen once or twice but shouldn't happen in that quantity.
What I really want, I now realise, is to find out more about the papers corresponding to the links. All the fine print on the diagram seems to be keywords from the nodes at the ends of the links.
But economics is a good point; it hadn't occurred to me that that would be lumped under social sciences.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-22 09:29 am (UTC)Most of the topology makes reasonable sense given a moment's thought, but I confess I can't immediately see the reason for the strong ties between social sciences and computer science. I suppose there might be some connection in the area of, say, analysing software engineering methodologies, but I wouldn't have expected it to be that significant.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-22 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-22 10:14 am (UTC)(I tried zooming in to read the detailed keywords in the hope that they'd help, but gave up after I had to turn my head upside down too many times :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-22 10:30 am (UTC)a) game theory
b) economists using computers for statistical number-crunching.
c) Terms that happen to crop up in both areas, with different meanings. 'regression', 'bootstrap' ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-22 10:33 am (UTC)What I really want, I now realise, is to find out more about the papers corresponding to the links. All the fine print on the diagram seems to be keywords from the nodes at the ends of the links.
But economics is a good point; it hadn't occurred to me that that would be lumped under social sciences.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-23 10:32 pm (UTC)