-
Furner, J.: On Recommending (2002)
0.00
0.0015457221 = product of:
0.009274333 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=5243,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.
-
Furner, J.: Definitions of "metadata" : a brief survey of international standards (2020)
0.00
0.0015457221 = product of:
0.009274333 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=5912,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- A search on the term "metadata" in the International Organization for Standardization's Online Browsing Platform (ISO OBP) reveals that there are 96 separate ISO standards that provide definitions of the term. Between them, these standards supply 46 different definitions-a lack of standardization that we might not have expected, given the context. In fact, if we make creative use of Simpson's index of concentration (originally devised as a measure of ecological diversity) to measure the degree of standardization of definition in this case, we arrive at a value of 0.05, on a scale of zero to one. It is suggested, however, that the situation is not as problematic as it might seem: that low cross-domain levels of standardization of definition should not be cause for concern.
-
Leazer, G.H.; Furner, J.: Topological indices of textual identity networks (1999)
0.00
0.0014873719 = product of:
0.008924231 = sum of:
0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008924231 = score(doc=6683,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- A textual identity network is a set of documents that share common semantic or linguistic content. For example, the textual identity network of Ben-Hur includes the progenitor work, translations, screen play adaptations, and film performances. A network might also include successively numbered editions, simultaneous editions published in various countries, and other derivative forms. This network expresses how a work evolves over time and through a variety of media. Evolving textual identity can be expressed as a set of relationships among the members of the network. Several taxonomies of intertextual associations have been developed for use in information retrieval systems. The individual documents (books, films, computer files, etc.) contained in a textual identity network can be associated through a number of pairwise relationships, and the network can be studied as a system. This basic pattern makes textual networks ideal candidates for study using network analysis techniques, allowing summary measures that characterize networks. Topological indices provide high-level measures of network structure. This paper concludes on a discussion of how topological indices might be used in document retrieval
-
Furner, J.: Philosophy and the information sciences (2009)
0.00
0.0011898974 = product of:
0.0071393843 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Philosophy and the information sciences intersect in various ways. Philosophical approaches to the study of information and information-related phenomena focus on metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical questions; philosophical approaches to the study of the information sciences focus on methodological issues. Metaphilosophical questions may also be asked about philosophy of information and about philosophy of the information sciences.
-
Furner, J.: FRSAD and the ontology of subjects of works (2012)
0.00
0.0010411602 = product of:
0.006246961 = sum of:
0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 1915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006246961 = score(doc=1915,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1915, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1915)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Critics of the FRSAD model have argued that the FRSAR Working Group failed to make explicit the ontological assumptions underlying the model, and/or failed to make explicit the reasoning behind the choices that were made among competing conceptions. In this article, the philosophical assumptions underlying the design of the FRSAD model are identified and precisely described; the full range of alternatives are discussed and evaluated; and the implications of the Working Group's choices among those alternatives are clarified.
-
Borgman, C.L.; Furner, J.: Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (2002)
0.00
8.9242304E-4 = product of:
0.005354538 = sum of:
0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005354538 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Why devote an ARIST chapter to scholarly communication and bibliometrics, and why now? Bibliometrics already is a frequently covered ARIST topic, with chapters such as that by White and McCain (1989) on bibliometrics generally, White and McCain (1997) on visualization of literatures, Wilson and Hood (2001) on informetric laws, and Tabah (2001) on literature dynamics. Similarly, scholarly communication has been addressed in other ARIST chapters such as Bishop and Star (1996) on social informatics and digital libraries, Schamber (1994) on relevance and information behavior, and many earlier chapters on information needs and uses. More than a decade ago, the first author addressed the intersection of scholarly communication and bibliometrics with a journal special issue and an edited book (Borgman, 1990; Borgman & Paisley, 1989), and she recently examined interim developments (Borgman, 2000a, 2000c). This review covers the decade (1990-2000) since the comprehensive 1990 volume, citing earlier works only when necessary to explain the foundation for recent developments.
