Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.035798166 = product of:
  0.07159633 = sum of:
    0.07159633 = sum of:
      0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03621618 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03538015 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.026478797 = sum of:
  0.011992325 = product of:
    0.0479693 = sum of:
      0.0479693 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0479693 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014486472 = product of:
    0.028972944 = sum of:
      0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028972944 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.015365225 = product of:
  0.03073045 = sum of:
    0.03073045 = product of:
      0.0614609 = sum of:
        0.0614609 = weight(_text_:b in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0614609 = score(doc=3392,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3321527 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im August 2009 wurde SKOS "Simple Knowledge Organization System" als neuer Standard für web-basierte kontrollierte Vokabulare durch das W3C veröffentlicht1. SKOS dient als Datenmodell, um kontrollierte Vokabulare über das Web anzubieten sowie technisch und semantisch interoperabel zu machen. Perspektivisch kann die heterogene Landschaft der Erschließungsvokabulare über SKOS vereinheitlicht und vor allem die Inhalte der klassischen Datenbanken (Bereich Fachinformation) für Anwendungen des Semantic Web, beispielsweise als Linked Open Data2 (LOD), zugänglich und stär-ker miteinander vernetzt werden. Vokabulare im SKOS-Format können dabei eine relevante Funktion einnehmen, indem sie als standardisiertes Brückenvokabular dienen und semantische Verlinkung zwischen erschlossenen, veröffentlichten Daten herstellen. Die folgende Fallstudie skizziert ein Szenario mit drei thematisch verwandten Thesauri, die ins SKOS-Format übertragen und inhaltlich über Crosskonkordanzen aus dem Projekt KoMoHe verbunden werden. Die Mapping Properties von SKOS bieten dazu standardisierte Relationen, die denen der Crosskonkordanzen entsprechen. Die beteiligten Thesauri der Fallstudie sind a) TheSoz (Thesaurus Sozialwissenschaften, GESIS), b) STW (Standard-Thesaurus Wirtschaft, ZBW) und c) IBLK-Thesaurus (SWP).

0.014990407 = product of:
  0.029980814 = sum of:
    0.029980814 = product of:
      0.11992326 = sum of:
        0.11992326 = weight(_text_:authors in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11992326 = score(doc=3106,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

0.0126756625 = product of:
  0.025351325 = sum of:
    0.025351325 = product of:
      0.05070265 = sum of:
        0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05070265 = score(doc=935,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ziel des Projekts ist die Entwicklung und Erprobung von metadatenbasierten Mehr-wertdiensten für Retrievalumgebungen mit mehreren Datenbanken: a) Search Term Recommender (STR) als Dienst zum automatischen Vorschlagen von Suchbegriffen aus kontrollierten Vokabularen, b) Bradfordizing als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von Ergebnismengen nach Kernzeitschriften und c) Autorenzentralität als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von. Ergebnismengen nach Zentralität der Autoren in Autorennetzwerken. Schwerpunkt des Projektes ist die prototypische mplementierung der drei Mehrwertdienste in einer integrierten Retrieval-Testumgebung und insbesondere deren quantitative und qualitative Evaluation hinsichtlich Verbesserung der Retrievalqualität bei Einsatz der Mehrwertdienste.

0.012383052 = product of:
  0.024766104 = sum of:
    0.024766104 = product of:
      0.04953221 = sum of:
        0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 5991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04953221 = score(doc=5991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 7.2006 21:06:22

0.012383052 = product of:
  0.024766104 = sum of:
    0.024766104 = product of:
      0.04953221 = sum of:
        0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04953221 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.010864854 = product of:
  0.021729708 = sum of:
    0.021729708 = product of:
      0.043459415 = sum of:
        0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043459415 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.

0.010864854 = product of:
  0.021729708 = sum of:
    0.021729708 = product of:
      0.043459415 = sum of:
        0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043459415 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010614045 = product of:
  0.02122809 = sum of:
    0.02122809 = product of:
      0.04245618 = sum of:
        0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04245618 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:25:54

0.010243483 = product of:
  0.020486966 = sum of:
    0.020486966 = product of:
      0.04097393 = sum of:
        0.04097393 = weight(_text_:b in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04097393 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.22143513 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Neben den klassischen Informationsanbietern Bibliothek, Fachinformation und den Verlagen sind Internetsuchmaschinen inzwischen fester Bestandteil bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Information. Scirus (Elsevier, 2004) und Google Scholar sind zwei Beispiele für Suchdienste kommerzieller Suchmaschinen-Unternehmen, die eine Einschränkung auf den wissenschaftlichen Dokumentenraum anstreben und nennenswerte Dokumentzahlen in allen Disziplinen generieren. Der Vergleich der Treffermengen für beliebige Suchthemen zeigt, dass die Wahl des Suchsystems, des Dokumentenpools und der Dokumenttypen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Relevanz und damit letztlich auch die Akzeptanz des Suchergebnisses hat. Tabelle 1 verdeutlicht die Mengenunterschiede am Beispiel der Trefferergebnisse für die Suchbegriffe "search engines" bzw. "Suchmaschinen" in der allgemeinen Internetsuchmaschine Google, der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine Google Scholar (GS) und der größten fachübergreifenden bibliographischen Literaturdatenbank Web of Science (WoS). Der Anteil der Dokumente, die in diesem Fall eindeutig der Wissenschaft zuzuordnen sind (siehe GS und insbesondere WoS in Tabelle 1), liegt gegenüber der allgemeinen Websuche lediglich im Promille-Bereich. Dieses Beispiel veranschaulicht, dass es ausgesprochen problematisch sein kann, fachwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen ausschließlich mit Internetsuchmaschinen zu recherchieren. Der Anteil der fachwissenschaftlich relevanten Dokumente in diesem Trefferpool ist i. d. R. sehr gering. Damit sinkt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, wissenschaftlich relevantes (z. B. einen Zeitschriftenaufsatz) auf den ersten Trefferseiten zu finden, deutlich ab.
Die drei oben genannten Suchsysteme (Google, GS und WoS) unterscheiden sich in mehrerlei Hinsicht fundamental und eignen sich daher gut, um in die Grundthematik dieses Artikels einzuleiten. Die obigen Suchsysteme erschließen zunächst unterschiedliche Suchräume, und dies auf sehr spezifische Weise. Während Google frei zugängliche und über Hyperlink adressierbare Dokumente im Internet erfasst, gehen die beiden akademischen Suchsysteme deutlich selektiver bei der Inhaltserschließung vor. Google Scholar erfasst neben frei zugänglichen elektronischen Publikationstypen im Internet hauptsächlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente, die direkt von den akademischen Verlagen bezogen werden. Das WoS, das auf den unterschiedlichen bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindizes des ehemaligen "Institute for Scientific Information" (ISI) basiert, selektiert gegenüber den rein automatischen brute-force-Ansätzen der Internetsuchmaschine über einen qualitativen Ansatz. In den Datenbanken des WoS werden ausschließlich internationale Fachzeitschriften erfasst, die ein kontrolliertes Peer-Review durchlaufen. Insgesamt werden ca. 12.000 Zeitschriften ausgewertet und über die Datenbank verfügbar gemacht. Wie bereits erwähnt, spielt neben der Abgrenzung der Suchräume und Dokumenttypen die Zugänglichkeit und Relevanz der Dokumente eine entscheidende Bedeutung für den Benutzer. Die neueren technologischen Entwicklungen des Web Information Retrieval (IR), wie sie Google oder GS implementieren, werten insbesondere frei zugängliche Dokumente mit ihrer gesamten Text- und Linkinformation automatisch aus. Diese Verfahren sind vor allem deshalb erfolgreich, weil sie Ergebnislisten nach Relevanz gerankt darstellen, einfach und schnell zu recherchieren sind und direkt auf die Volltexte verweisen. Die qualitativen Verfahren der traditionellen Informationsanbieter (z. B. WoS) hingegen zeigen genau bei diesen Punkten (Ranking, Einfachheit und Volltextzugriff) Schwächen, überzeugen aber vor allem durch ihre Stringenz, in diesem Fall die selektive Aufnahme von qualitätsgeprüften Dokumenten in das System und die inhaltliche Erschließung der Dokumente (siehe dazu Mayr und Petras, 2008).

0.008963048 = product of:
  0.017926097 = sum of:
    0.017926097 = product of:
      0.035852194 = sum of:
        0.035852194 = weight(_text_:b in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035852194 = score(doc=542,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.19375575 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).

0.0074952035 = product of:
  0.014990407 = sum of:
    0.014990407 = product of:
      0.05996163 = sum of:
        0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05996163 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.