Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00895443 = product of:
  0.026863288 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.6, S.1198-1212

0.008495895 = product of:
  0.025487684 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
    0.0148981325 = product of:
      0.029796265 = sum of:
        0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029796265 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.633-646

0.0036683278 = product of:
  0.022009967 = sum of:
    0.022009967 = weight(_text_:information in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022009967 = score(doc=3006,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

User studies in the music information retrieval (MIR) domain tend to be exploratory and qualitative in nature, involving a small number of users, which makes it difficult to derive broader implications for system design. In order to fill this gap, we conducted a large-scale user survey questioning various aspects of people's music information needs and behaviors. In particular, we investigated if general music users' needs and behaviors have significantly changed over time by comparing our current survey results with a similar survey conducted in 2004. In this paper, we present the key findings from the survey data and discuss 4 emergent themes-(a) the shift in access and use of personal music collections; (b) the growing need for tools to support collaborative music seeking, listening, and sharing; (c) the importance of "visual" music experiences; and (d) the need for ontologies for providing rich contextual information. We conclude by making specific recommendations for improving the design of MIR systems and services.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1301-1330

0.0028238804 = product of:
  0.016943282 = sum of:
    0.016943282 = weight(_text_:information in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016943282 = score(doc=606,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose With ready access to search engines and social media platforms, the way people find image information has evolved and diversified in the past two decades. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the literature on image information needs and behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Following an eight-step procedure for conducting systematic literature reviews, the paper presents an analysis of peer-reviewed work on image information needs and behaviors, with publications ranging from the years 1997 to 2019. Findings Application of the inclusion criteria led to 69 peer-reviewed works. These works were synthesized according to the following categories: research methods, users targeted, image types, identified needs, search behaviors and search obstacles. The reviewed studies show that people seek and use images for multiple reasons, including entertainment, illustration, aesthetic appreciation, knowledge construction, engagement, inspiration and social interactions. The reviewed studies also report that common strategies for image searches include keyword searches with short queries, browsing, specialization and reformulation. Observed trends suggest common deployment of query analysis, survey questionnaires and undergraduate participant pools to research image information needs and behavior. Originality/value At this point, after more than two decades of image information needs research, a holistic systematic review of the literature was long overdue. The way users find image information has evolved and diversified due to technological developments in image retrieval. By synthesizing this burgeoning field into specific foci, this systematic literature review provides a foundation for future empirical investigation. With this foundation set, the paper then pinpoints key research gaps to investigate, particularly the influence of user expertise, a need for more diverse population samples, a dearth of qualitative data, new search features and information and visual literacies instruction.

0.0024708952 = product of:
  0.014825371 = sum of:
    0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014825371 = score(doc=710,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 710, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=710)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Subject headings and genre terms are notoriously difficult to apply, yet are important for fiction. The current project functions as a proof of concept, using a text-mining methodology to identify affective information (emotion and tone) about fiction titles from professional book reviews as a potential first step in automating the subject analysis process. Findings are presented and discussed, comparing results to the range of aboutness and isness information in library cataloging records. The methodology is likewise presented, and how future work might expand on the current project to enhance catalog records through text-mining is explored.

0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=4535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 5730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=5730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5730, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5730)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0012479905 = product of:
  0.007487943 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 3146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=3146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3146)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2587-2606