Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018622277 = product of:
  0.08690396 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 2744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=2744,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2744, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2744)
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 2744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=2744,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 2744, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2744)
    0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04019281 = score(doc=2744,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2744, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2744)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Information retrieval is a long established subfield of library and information science. Since its inception in the early- to mid -1950s, it has grown as a result, in part, of well-regarded retrieval system evaluation exercises/campaigns, the proliferation of Web search engines, and the expansion of digital libraries. Although researchers have examined the intellectual structure and nature of the general field of library and information science, the same cannot be said about the subfield of information retrieval. We address that in this work by sketching the information retrieval intellectual landscape through visualizations of citation behaviors. Citation data for 10 years (2000-2009) were retrieved from the Web of Science and analyzed using existing visualization techniques. Our results address information retrieval's co-authorship network, highly productive authors, highly cited journals and papers, author-assigned keywords, active institutions, and the import of ideas from other disciplines.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.1, S.120-135

0.0072540357 = product of:
  0.050778247 = sum of:
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
    0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03594954 = score(doc=1958,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392

0.004770705 = product of:
  0.033394933 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=4100,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=4100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2230-2242

0.0047255447 = product of:
  0.033078812 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2122,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=2122,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1741-1753

0.004427025 = product of:
  0.030989174 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=520,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The rapid growth of the numbers of images and their users as a result of the reduction in cost and increase in efficiency of the creation, storage, manipulation, and transmission of images poses challenges to those who organize and provide access to images. One of these challenges is similarity matching, a key component of current content-based image retrieval systems. Similarity matching often is implemented through similarity measures based on geometric models of similarity whose metric axioms are not satisfied by human similarity judgment data. This study is significant in that it is among the first known to test Tversky's contrast model, which equates the degree of similarity of two stimuli to a linear combination of their common and distinctive features, in the context of image representation and retrieval. Data were collected from 150 participants who performed an image description and a similarity judgment task. Structural equation modeling, correlation, and regression analyses confirmed the relationships between perceived features and similarity of objects hypothesized by Tversky. The results hold implications for future research that will attempt to further test the contrast model and assist designers of image organization and retrieval systems by pointing toward alternative document representations and similarity measures that more closely match human similarity judgments.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1401-1418

9.6690713E-4 = product of:
  0.013536699 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=1612,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The number and size of digital repositories containing visual information (images or videos) is increasing and thereby demanding appropriate ways to represent and search these information spaces. Their visualization often relies on reducing the dimensions of the information space to create a lower-dimensional feature space which, from the point-of-view of the end user, will be viewed and interpreted as a perceptual space. Critically for information visualization, the degree to which the feature and perceptual spaces correspond is still an open research question. In this paper we report the results of three studies which indicate that distance (or dissimilarity) matrices based on low-level visual features, in conjunction with various similarity measures commonly used in current CBIR systems, correlate with human similarity judgments.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.770-784

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2513-2536