Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02763396 = product of:
  0.096718855 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The desalination industry involves the desalting of sea or brackish water and achieves the purpose of increasing the worls's effective water supply. There are approximately 4.000 desalination Web sites. The six major Internet search engines were used to determine, according to each of the six, the top twenty sites for desalination. Each site was visited and the 120 gross returns were pared down to the final ten - the 'Top Ten'. The Top Ten were then analyzed to determine what it was that made the sites useful and informative. The major attributes were: a) currency (up-to-date); b) search site capability; c) access to articles on desalination; d) newsletters; e) databases; f) product information; g) online conferencing; h) valuable links to other sites; l) communication links; j) site maps; and k) case studies. Reasons for having a Web site and the current status and prospects for Internet commerce are discussed

0.017640304 = product of:
  0.06174106 = sum of:
    0.050833322 = weight(_text_:europe in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050833322 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.20189285 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
    0.0109077385 = product of:
      0.021815477 = sum of:
        0.021815477 = weight(_text_:studies in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021815477 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.13226016 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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.
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.

0.005600515 = product of:
  0.039203603 = sum of:
    0.039203603 = product of:
      0.078407206 = sum of:
        0.078407206 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078407206 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Ariadne. 1999, no.22

0.005194162 = product of:
  0.03635913 = sum of:
    0.03635913 = product of:
      0.07271826 = sum of:
        0.07271826 = weight(_text_:studies in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07271826 = score(doc=3165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Imprint

Ann Arbor : University of Michigan School of Information and Library Studies

0.004800441 = product of:
  0.033603087 = sum of:
    0.033603087 = product of:
      0.067206174 = sum of:
        0.067206174 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067206174 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10.11.1996 16:36:22

0.004447426 = product of:
  0.031131983 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=4704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

CIKM '04 Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management

0.003672827 = product of:
  0.025709787 = sum of:
    0.025709787 = product of:
      0.051419575 = sum of:
        0.051419575 = weight(_text_:studies in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051419575 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

0.0032002942 = product of:
  0.02240206 = sum of:
    0.02240206 = product of:
      0.04480412 = sum of:
        0.04480412 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04480412 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.0029649509 = product of:
  0.020754656 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.002597081 = product of:
  0.018179566 = sum of:
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 3854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=3854,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3854, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Web search engines, such as Google and Bing, are constantly employing results from knowledge organization and various visualization features to improve their search services. Knowledge graph, a large repository of structured knowledge represented by formal languages such as RDF (Resource Description Framework), is used to support entity search feature of Google and Bing (Demartini, 2016). When a user searchs for an entity, such as a person, an organization, or a place in Google or Bing, it is likely that a knowledge cardwill be presented on the right side bar of the search engine result pages (SERPs). For example, when a user searches the entity Benedict Cumberbatch on Google, the knowledge card will show the basic structured information about this person, including his date of birth, height, spouse, parents, and his movies, etc. The knowledge card, which is used to present the result of entity search, is generated from knowledge graphs. Therefore, the quality of knowledge graphs is essential to the performance of entity search. However, studies on the quality of knowledge graphs from the angle of entity coverage are scant in the literature. This study aims to investigate the coverage of entities of knowledge graphs behind Google and Bing.

0.002597081 = product of:
  0.018179566 = sum of:
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

From documenting human rights abuses to studying online advertising, web archives are increasingly positioned as critical resources for a broad range of scholarly Internet research agendas. In this article, we reflect on the motivations and methodological challenges of investigating the world's largest web archive, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (IAWM). Using a mixed methods approach, we report on a pilot project centred around documenting the inner workings of 'Save Page Now' (SPN) - an Internet Archive tool that allows users to initiate the creation and storage of 'snapshots' of web resources. By improving our understanding of SPN and its role in shaping the IAWM, this work examines how the public tool is being used to 'save the Web' and highlights the challenges of operationalising a study of the dynamic sociotechnical processes supporting this knowledge infrastructure. Inspired by existing Science and Technology Studies (STS) approaches, the paper charts our development of methodological interventions to support an interdisciplinary investigation of SPN, including: ethnographic methods, 'experimental blackbox tactics', data tracing, modelling and documentary research. We discuss the opportunities and limitations of our methodology when interfacing with issues associated with temporality, scale and visibility, as well as critically engage with our own positionality in the research process (in terms of expertise and access). We conclude with reflections on the implications of digital STS approaches for 'knowing infrastructure', where the use of these infrastructures is unavoidably intertwined with our ability to study the situated and material arrangements of their creation.

0.002000184 = product of:
  0.0140012875 = sum of:
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.002000184 = product of:
  0.0140012875 = sum of:
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.0015582484 = product of:
  0.0109077385 = sum of:
    0.0109077385 = product of:
      0.021815477 = sum of:
        0.021815477 = weight(_text_:studies in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021815477 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.13226016 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

"One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."

0.0010388324 = product of:
  0.007271826 = sum of:
    0.007271826 = product of:
      0.014543652 = sum of:
        0.014543652 = weight(_text_:studies in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014543652 = score(doc=1555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.08817344 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Research Prototypes Visual SiteMap Developed by Xia Lin, based at the College of Library and Information Science, Drexel University. CVG Cyberspace geography visualization, developed by Luc Girardin, at The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Switzerland. WEBSOM Maps the thousands of articles posted on Usenet newsgroups. It is being developed by researchers at the Neural Networks Research Centre, Helsinki University of Technology in Finland. TreeMaps Developed by Brian Johnson, Ben Shneiderman and colleagues in the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland. Commercial Information Maps: NewsMaps Provides interactive information landscapes summarizing daily news stories, developed Cartia, Inc. Web Squirrel Creates maps known as information farms. It is developed by Eastgate Systems, Inc. Umap Produces interactive maps of Web searches. Map of the Market An interactive map of the market performance of the stocks of major US corporations developed by SmartMoney.com."