Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Wang, S."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Isaac, A.; Wang, S.; Zinn, C.; Matthezing, H.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Evaluating thesaurus alignments for semantic interoperability in the library domain (2009) 0.02
    0.018151572 = product of:
      0.036303144 = sum of:
        0.036303144 = product of:
          0.07260629 = sum of:
            0.07260629 = weight(_text_:l in 1650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07260629 = score(doc=1650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 1650, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1650)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  2. Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Liu, B.: Deep learning for sentiment analysis : a survey (2018) 0.02
    0.018151572 = product of:
      0.036303144 = sum of:
        0.036303144 = product of:
          0.07260629 = sum of:
            0.07260629 = weight(_text_:l in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07260629 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 4092, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4092)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  3. Ren, P.; Chen, Z.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Z.; Si, L.; Wang, S.: Detecting temporal patterns of user queries (2017) 0.01
    0.0136136785 = product of:
      0.027227357 = sum of:
        0.027227357 = product of:
          0.054454714 = sum of:
            0.054454714 = weight(_text_:l in 3315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054454714 = score(doc=3315,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3315, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3315)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  4. Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schlobach, S.; Meij, L. van der; Schopman, B.: Instance-based semantic interoperability in the cultural heritage (2012) 0.01
    0.011344733 = product of:
      0.022689465 = sum of:
        0.022689465 = product of:
          0.04537893 = sum of:
            0.04537893 = weight(_text_:l in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04537893 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  5. Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.01
    0.008806148 = product of:
      0.017612295 = sum of:
        0.017612295 = product of:
          0.03522459 = sum of:
            0.03522459 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03522459 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
  6. Wang, S.; Koopman, R.: Embed first, then predict (2019) 0.01
    0.007462248 = product of:
      0.014924496 = sum of:
        0.014924496 = product of:
          0.059697986 = sum of:
            0.059697986 = weight(_text_:authors in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059697986 = score(doc=5400,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5400, 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=5400)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Automatic subject prediction is a desirable feature for modern digital library systems, as manual indexing can no longer cope with the rapid growth of digital collections. It is also desirable to be able to identify a small set of entities (e.g., authors, citations, bibliographic records) which are most relevant to a query. This gets more difficult when the amount of data increases dramatically. Data sparsity and model scalability are the major challenges to solving this type of extreme multilabel classification problem automatically. In this paper, we propose to address this problem in two steps: we first embed different types of entities into the same semantic space, where similarity could be computed easily; second, we propose a novel non-parametric method to identify the most relevant entities in addition to direct semantic similarities. We show how effectively this approach predicts even very specialised subjects, which are associated with few documents in the training set and are more problematic for a classifier.
  7. Xie, I.; Babu, R.; Lee, H.S.; Wang, S.; Lee, T.H.: Orientation tactics and associated factors in the digital library environment : comparison between blind and sighted users (2021) 0.01
    0.007462248 = product of:
      0.014924496 = sum of:
        0.014924496 = product of:
          0.059697986 = sum of:
            0.059697986 = weight(_text_:authors in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059697986 = score(doc=307,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05199731 = queryNorm
                0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 307, 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=307)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This is the first study that compares types of orientation tactics that blind and sighted users applied in their initial interactions with a digital library (DL) and the associated factors. Multiple methods were employed for data collection: questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, and transaction logs. The paper identifies seven types of orientation tactics applied by the two groups of users. While sighted users focused on skimming DL content, blind users concentrated on exploring DL structure. Moreover, the authors discovered 13 types of system, user, and interaction factors that led to the use of orientation tactics. More system factors than user factors affect blind users' tactics in browsing DL structures. The findings of this study support the social model that the sight-centered design of DLs, rather than blind users' disability, prohibits them from effectively interacting with a DL. Simultaneously, the results reveal the limitation of existing interactive information retrieval models that do not take people with disabilities into consideration. DL design implications are discussed based on the identified factors.