Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013010402 = product of:
  0.026020804 = sum of:
    0.026020804 = product of:
      0.10408322 = sum of:
        0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10408322 = score(doc=295,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

0.0088643385 = product of:
  0.017728677 = sum of:
    0.017728677 = product of:
      0.035457354 = sum of:
        0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035457354 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 7.2011 19:22:49

0.008498359 = product of:
  0.016996717 = sum of:
    0.016996717 = product of:
      0.06798687 = sum of:
        0.06798687 = weight(_text_:authors in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06798687 = score(doc=2343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

0.007921002 = product of:
  0.015842004 = sum of:
    0.015842004 = product of:
      0.031684007 = sum of:
        0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 2784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031684007 = score(doc=2784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 2784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: iwp 65(2014) H.1, S.76-81 (R. Kuhlen). Weitere Rez. in: JASIST 67(2016) no.3, S.749-750 (T. Saracevic).