Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. hugh%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. stratmann u. K. huth%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffelt%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1
editores%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1

Auer, S.; Oelen, A.; Haris, A.M.; Stocker, M.; D'Souza, J.; Farfar, K.E.; Vogt, L.; Prinz, M.; Wiens, V.; Jaradeh, M.Y.: Improving access to scientific literature with knowledge graphs : an experiment using library guidelines to judge information integrity (2020) 0.00
```
0.0040357425 = product of:
  0.014797722 = sum of:
    0.004532476 = product of:
      0.009064952 = sum of:
        0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009064952 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0078101465 = weight(_text_:a in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0078101465 = score(doc=316,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=316,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
```
Abstract

The transfer of knowledge has not changed fundamentally for many hundreds of years: It is usually document-based-formerly printed on paper as a classic essay and nowadays as PDF. With around 2.5 million new research contributions every year, researchers drown in a flood of pseudo-digitized PDF publications. As a result research is seriously weakened. In this article, we argue for representing scholarly contributions in a structured and semantic way as a knowledge graph. The advantage is that information represented in a knowledge graph is readable by machines and humans. As an example, we give an overview on the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), a service implementing this approach. For creating the knowledge graph representation, we rely on a mixture of manual (crowd/expert sourcing) and (semi-)automated techniques. Only with such a combination of human and machine intelligence, we can achieve the required quality of the representation to allow for novel exploration and assistance services for researchers. As a result, a scholarly knowledge graph such as the ORKG can be used to give a condensed overview on the state-of-the-art addressing a particular research quest, for example as a tabular comparison of contributions according to various characteristics of the approaches. Further possible intuitive access interfaces to such scholarly knowledge graphs include domain-specific (chart) visualizations or answering of natural language questions.

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.3, S.516-529

Type

a