Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.077694096 = product of:
  0.15538819 = sum of:
    0.11560067 = weight(_text_:digital in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11560067 = score(doc=74,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.58470786 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=74,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Digital libraries have become one of the most important Web services for information seeking. One of their main drawbacks is their global approach: In general, there is just one interface for all users. One of the key elements in improving user satisfaction in digital libraries is personalization. When considering personalizing factors, cognitive styles have been proved to be one of the relevant parameters that affect information seeking. This justifies the introduction of cognitive style as one of the parameters of a Web personalized service. Nevertheless, this approach has one major drawback: Each user has to run a time-consuming test that determines his or her cognitive style. In this article, we present a study of how different classification systems can be used to automatically identify the cognitive style of a user using the set of interactions with a digital library. These classification systems can be used to automatically personalize, from a cognitive-style point of view, the interaction of the digital library and each of its users.

0.04399944 = product of:
  0.08799888 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=3018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=3018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The citation relationships between publications, which are significant for assessing the importance of scholarly components within a network, have been used for various scientific applications. Missing citation metadata in scholarly databases, however, create problems for classical citation-based ranking algorithms and challenge the performance of citation-based retrieval systems. In this research, we utilize a two-step citation analysis method to investigate the importance of publications for which citation information is partially missing. First, we calculate the importance of the author and then use his importance to estimate the publication importance for some selected articles. To evaluate this method, we designed a simulation experiment-"random citation-missing"-to test the two-step citation analysis that we carried out with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). In this experiment, we simulated different scenarios in a large-scale scientific digital library, from high-quality citation data, to very poor quality data, The results show that a two-step citation analysis can effectively uncover the importance of publications in different situations. More importantly, we found that the optimized impact from the importance of an author (first step) is exponentially increased when the quality of citation decreases. The findings from this study can further enhance citation-based publication-ranking algorithms for real-world applications.

0.014067013 = product of:
  0.05626805 = sum of:
    0.05626805 = weight(_text_:library in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05626805 = score(doc=5588,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.42695788 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The standardization of Chinese materials classification was first proposed in the late-1970s in China. In December 1980, the CCDST, the Chinese Library Association and the Chinese Society for Information Science proposed that the Chinese Library Classification system be adopted as national standard. This marked the beginning of the standardization of Chinese materials classification. Later on, there were many conferences and workshops held and four draft national standards were discussed, those for the Chinese Library Classification systems, the Materials Classification System, the Rules for Thesaurus and Subject Headings, and the rules for Materials Classifying Color Recognition. This article gives a brief review on the historical development of the standardization on Chinese Library Classification. It also discusses its effects on automation, networking and resources sharing and the feasibility of adopting Chinese Library Classification as a National Standard. In addition, the main content of the standardization of materials classification, use of the national standard classification system and variations under the standard system are covered in this article

0.0073997467 = product of:
  0.029598987 = sum of:
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports on a portion of a larger ongoing project. We address the issues of information organization and retrieval in large, active commercial websites. More specifically, we address the use of classification for providing access to the contents of such sites. We approach this analysis by describing the functionality and structure of the classification scheme of one such representative, large, active, commercial websites: eBay.com, a web-based auction site for millions of users and items. We compare eBay's classification scheme with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, which is a tool for describing and providing access to material culture.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas