Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038448475 = sum of:
  0.02658893 = product of:
    0.10635572 = sum of:
      0.10635572 = weight(_text_:authors in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10635572 = score(doc=3807,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.46641657 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011859546 = product of:
    0.023719093 = sum of:
      0.023719093 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023719093 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Academic authors tend to define terms that meet their own needs. Knowledge Management (KM) is a term that comes to mind and is examined in this study. Lexicographical research identified KM terms used by authors from 1996 to 2006 in academic outlets to define KM. Data were collected based on strict criteria which included that definitions should be unique instances. From 2006 onwards, these authors could not identify new unique instances of definitions with repetitive usage of such definition instances. Analysis revealed that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, and Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The aim of this paper is to add to the body of knowledge in the KM discipline and supply KM practitioners and scholars with insight into what is commonly regarded to be KM so as to reignite the debate on what one could consider as KM. The lexicon used by KM scholars was evaluated though the application of lexicographical research methods as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods. Findings By simplifying term relationships through the application of lexicographical research methods, as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods, it was found that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). One would therefore be able to indicate that KM, from an academic point of view, refers to people processing contextualised content.
Research limitations/implications In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves. Social implications When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be. Originality/value By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.037828006 = product of:
  0.07565601 = sum of:
    0.07565601 = product of:
      0.15131202 = sum of:
        0.15131202 = weight(_text_:m.p in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15131202 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.44781366 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010165325 = product of:
  0.02033065 = sum of:
    0.02033065 = product of:
      0.0406613 = sum of:
        0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406613 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 1.2013 19:22:47

0.010165325 = product of:
  0.02033065 = sum of:
    0.02033065 = product of:
      0.0406613 = sum of:
        0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 1848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406613 = score(doc=1848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1848, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of entity linking is to associate references to an entity that is found in unstructured natural language content to an authoritative inventory of known entities. This article describes the construction of 6 test collections for cross-language person-entity linking that together span 22 languages. Fully automated components were used together with 2 crowdsourced validation stages to affordably generate ground-truth annotations with an accuracy comparable to that of a completely manual process. The resulting test collections each contain between 642 (Arabic) and 2,361 (Romanian) person references in non-English texts for which the correct resolution in English Wikipedia is known, plus a similar number of references for which no correct resolution into English Wikipedia is believed to exist. Fully automated cross-language person-name linking experiments with 20 non-English languages yielded a resolution accuracy of between 0.84 (Serbian) and 0.98 (Romanian), which compares favorably with previously reported cross-language entity linking results for Spanish.

0.010151701 = product of:
  0.020303402 = sum of:
    0.020303402 = product of:
      0.08121361 = sum of:
        0.08121361 = weight(_text_:authors in 246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08121361 = score(doc=246,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 246, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=246)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a new, two-stage, self-supervised algorithm for author disambiguation in large bibliographic databases. In the first "bootstrap" stage, a collection of high-precision features is used to bootstrap a training set with positive and negative examples of coreferring authors. A supervised feature-based classifier is then trained on the bootstrap clusters and used to cluster the authors in a larger unlabeled dataset. Our self-supervised approach shares the advantages of unsupervised approaches (no need for expensive hand labels) as well as supervised approaches (a rich set of features that can be discriminatively trained). The algorithm disambiguates 54,000,000 author instances in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge with B3 F1 of.807. We analyze parameters and features, particularly those from citation networks, which have not been deeply investigated in author disambiguation. The most important citation feature is self-citation, which can be approximated without expensive extraction of the full network. For the supervised stage, the minor improvement due to other citation features (increasing F1 from.748 to.767) suggests they may not be worth the trouble of extracting from databases that don't already have them. A lean feature set without expensive abstract and title features performs 130 times faster with about equal F1.

0.01004967 = product of:
  0.02009934 = sum of:
    0.02009934 = product of:
      0.08039736 = sum of:
        0.08039736 = weight(_text_:authors in 4103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08039736 = score(doc=4103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4103)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we propose to apply the topic model and topic-level eigenfactor (TEF) algorithm to assess the relative importance of academic entities including articles, authors, journals, and conferences. Scientific impact is measured by the biased PageRank score toward topics created by the latent topic model. The TEF metric considers the impact of an academic entity in multiple granular views as well as in a global view. Experiments on a computational linguistics corpus show that the method is a useful and promising measure to assess scientific impact.

0.01004967 = product of:
  0.02009934 = sum of:
    0.02009934 = product of:
      0.08039736 = sum of:
        0.08039736 = weight(_text_:authors in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08039736 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ACL Anthology is a large collection of research papers in computational linguistics. Citation data were obtained using text extraction from a collection of PDF files with significant manual postprocessing performed to clean up the results. Manual annotation of the references was then performed to complete the citation network. We analyzed the networks of paper citations, author citations, and author collaborations in an attempt to identify the most central papers and authors. The analysis includes general network statistics, PageRank, metrics across publication years and venues, the impact factor and h-index, as well as other measures.

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arabic has a complex structure, which makes it difficult to apply natural language processing (NLP). Much research on Arabic NLP (ANLP) does exist; however, it is not as mature as that of other languages. Finding Arabic roots is an important step toward conducting effective research on most of ANLP applications. The authors have studied and compared six root-finding algorithms with success rates of over 90%. All algorithms of this study did not use the same testing corpus and/or benchmarking measures. They unified the testing process by implementing their own algorithm descriptions and building a corpus out of 3823 triliteral roots, applying 73 triliteral patterns, and with 18 affixes, producing around 27.6 million words. They tested the algorithms with the generated corpus and have obtained interesting results; they offer to share the corpus freely for benchmarking and ANLP research.

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.

0.008471105 = product of:
  0.01694221 = sum of:
    0.01694221 = product of:
      0.03388442 = sum of:
        0.03388442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03388442 = score(doc=1365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1365, 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=1365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 9.2014 21:22:48

0.0057426686 = product of:
  0.011485337 = sum of:
    0.011485337 = product of:
      0.04594135 = sum of:
        0.04594135 = weight(_text_:authors in 5970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04594135 = score(doc=5970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 5970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5970)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the global research community, English has become the main language of scholarly publishing in many disciplines. At the same time, online machine translation systems have become increasingly easy to access and use. Is this a researcher's match made in heaven, or the road to publication perdition? Here Lynne Bowker and Jairo Buitrago Ciro introduce the concept of machine translation literacy, a new kind of literacy for scholars and librarians in the digital age. For scholars, they explain how machine translation works, how it is (or could be) used for scholarly communication, and how both native and non-native English-speakers can write in a translation-friendly way in order to harness its potential. Native English speakers can continue to write in English, but expand the global reach of their research by making it easier for their peers around the world to access and understand their works, while non-native English speakers can write in their mother tongues, but leverage machine translation technology to help them produce draft publications in English. For academic librarians, the authors provide a framework for supporting researchers in all disciplines as they grapple with producing translation-friendly texts and using machine translation for scholarly communication - a form of support that will only become more important as campuses become increasingly international and as universities continue to strive to excel on the global stage. Machine Translation and Global Research is a must-read for scientists, researchers, students, and librarians eager to maximize the global reach and impact of any form of scholarly work.