Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=754,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of our investigation was to discuss exactly what is formulated in the title. This will of course constitute a main part of this write-up. However, in the process of investigations it also became clear that the focus has to be extended, not to just cover Google and search engines in an isolated fashion, but to also cover other Web 2.0 related phenomena, particularly Wikipedia, Blogs, and other related community efforts. It was the purpose of our investigation to demonstrate: - Plagiarism and IPR violation are serious concerns in academia and in the commercial world - Current techniques to fight both are rudimentary, yet could be improved by a concentrated initiative - One reason why the fight is difficult is the dominance of Google as THE major search engine and that Google is unwilling to cooperate - The monopolistic behaviour of Google is also threatening how we see the world, how we as individuals are seen (complete loss of privacy) and is threatening even world economy (!) In our proposal we did present a list of typical sections that would be covered at varying depth, with the possible replacement of one or the other by items that would emerge as still more important.
The preliminary intended and approved list was: Section 1: To concentrate on Google as virtual monopoly, and Google's reported support of Wikipedia. To find experimental evidence of this support or show that the reports are not more than rumours. Section 2: To address the copy-past syndrome with socio-cultural consequences associated with it. Section 3: To deal with plagiarism and IPR violations as two intertwined topics: how they affect various players (teachers and pupils in school; academia; corporations; governmental studies, etc.). To establish that not enough is done concerning these issues, partially due to just plain ignorance. We will propose some ways to alleviate the problem. Section 4: To discuss the usual tools to fight plagiarism and their shortcomings. Section 5: To propose ways to overcome most of above problems according to proposals by Maurer/Zaka. To examples, but to make it clear that do this more seriously a pilot project is necessary beyond this particular study. Section 6: To briefly analyze various views of plagiarism as it is quite different in different fields (journalism, engineering, architecture, painting, .) and to present a concept that avoids plagiarism from the very beginning. Section 7: To point out the many other dangers of Google or Google-like undertakings: opportunistic ranking, analysis of data as window into commercial future. Section 8: To outline the need of new international laws. Section 9: To mention the feeble European attempts to fight Google, despite Google's growing power. Section 10. To argue that there is no way to catch up with Google in a frontal attack.
Section 11: To argue that fighting large search engines and plagiarism slice-by-slice by using dedicated servers combined by one hub could eventually decrease the importance of other global search engines. Section 12: To argue that global search engines are an area that cannot be left to the free market, but require some government control or at least non-profit institutions. We will mention other areas where similar if not as glaring phenomena are visible. Section 13: We will mention in passing the potential role of virtual worlds, such as the currently overhyped system "second life". Section 14: To elaborate and try out a model for knowledge workers that does not require special search engines, with a description of a simple demonstrator. Section 15 (Not originally part of the proposal): To propose concrete actions and to describe an Austrian effort that could, with moderate support, minimize the role of Google for Austria. Section 16: References (Not originally part of the proposal) In what follows, we will stick to Sections 1 -14 plus the new Sections 15 and 16 as listed, plus a few Appendices.
We believe that the importance has shifted considerably since the approval of the project. We thus will emphasize some aspects much more than ever planned, and treat others in a shorter fashion. We believe and hope that this is also seen as unexpected benefit by BMVIT. This report is structured as follows: After an Executive Summary that will highlight why the topic is of such paramount importance we explain in an introduction possible optimal ways how to study the report and its appendices. We can report with some pride that many of the ideas have been accepted by the international scene at conferences and by journals as of such crucial importance that a number of papers (constituting the appendices and elaborating the various sections) have been considered high quality material for publication. We want to thank the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) for making this study possible. We would be delighted if the study can be distributed widely to European decision makers, as some of the issues involved do indeed involve all of Europe, if not the world.

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 6232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=6232,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 6232, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the Book House system which is designed to support children's information retrieval in libraries as part of their education. It is a shareware program available on CD-ROM and discs, and comprises functionality for database searching as well as for the classification and storage of book information in the database. The system concept is based on an understanding of children's domain structures and their capabilities for categorization of information needs in connection with their activities in public libraries, in school libraries or in schools. These structures are visualized in the interface by using metaphors and multimedia technology. Through the use of text, images and animation, the Book House supports children - even at a very early age - to learn by doing in an enjoyable way which plays on their previous experiences with computer games. Both words and pictures can be used for searching; this makes the system suitable for all age groups. Even children who have not yet learned to read properly can by selecting pictures search for and find books they would like to have read aloud. Thus at the very beginning of their school period, they can learn to search for books on their own. For the library community itself, such a system will provide an extended service which will increase the number of children's own searches and also improve the relevance, quality and utilization of the collections in the libraries. A market research on the need for an annual indexing service for books in the Book House format is in preparation by the Danish Library Center

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 6581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=6581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 6581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=76,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4929,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4929, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=4504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=4565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a