Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0136472145 = product of:
  0.027294429 = sum of:
    0.027294429 = sum of:
      0.004863797 = weight(_text_:a in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004863797 = score(doc=2752,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.022430632 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022430632 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28

Type

a

0.002279905 = product of:
  0.00455981 = sum of:
    0.00455981 = product of:
      0.00911962 = sum of:
        0.00911962 = weight(_text_:a in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00911962 = score(doc=1189,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.

Type

a

0.0022569906 = product of:
  0.0045139813 = sum of:
    0.0045139813 = product of:
      0.009027963 = sum of:
        0.009027963 = weight(_text_:a in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009027963 = score(doc=1188,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18917176 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.
A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.

Type

a

0.0013594727 = product of:
  0.0027189455 = sum of:
    0.0027189455 = product of:
      0.005437891 = sum of:
        0.005437891 = weight(_text_:a in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005437891 = score(doc=357,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Employing approaches adopted from studies of library and information science (LIS) research trends performed by Järvelin et al., this content analysis systematically examines the evolution and distribution of LIS research topics and data collection methods at 6-year increments from 2006 to 2018. Bibliographic data were collected for 3,422 articles published in LIS journals in the years 2006, 2012, and 2018. While the classification schemes provided in the Järvelin studies do not indicate much change, an analysis of subtopics, data sources, and keywords indicates a substantial impact of social media and data science on the discipline, which emerged at some point between the years of 2012 and 2018. These findings suggest a type of shift in the focus of LIS research, with social media and data science topics playing a role in well over one-third of articles published in 2018, compared with approximately 5% in 2012 and virtually none in 2006. The shift in LIS research foci based on these two technologies/approaches appears similar in extent to those produced by the introduction of information systems in library science in the 1960s, or the Internet in the 1990s, suggesting that these recent advancements are fundamental to the identity of LIS as a discipline.

Type

a

0.0010639556 = product of:
  0.0021279112 = sum of:
    0.0021279112 = product of:
      0.0042558224 = sum of:
        0.0042558224 = weight(_text_:a in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0042558224 = score(doc=5181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a