Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Favato Barcelos, P.P.; Sales, T.P.; Fumagalli, M.; Guizzardi, G.; Valle Sousa, I.; Fonseca, C.M.; Romanenko, E.; Kritz, J.: ¬A FAIR model catalog for ontology-driven conceptual modeling research (2022) 0.03
    0.028887425 = product of:
      0.05777485 = sum of:
        0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03657866 = score(doc=756,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
        0.021196188 = product of:
          0.042392377 = sum of:
            0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042392377 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046827413 = queryNorm
                0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Conceptual models are artifacts representing conceptualizations of particular domains. Hence, multi-domain model catalogs serve as empirical sources of knowledge and insights about specific domains, about the use of a modeling language's constructs, as well as about the patterns and anti-patterns recurrent in the models of that language crosscutting different domains. However, to support domain and language learning, model reuse, knowledge discovery for humans, and reliable automated processing and analysis by machines, these catalogs must be built following generally accepted quality requirements for scientific data management. Especially, all scientific (meta)data-including models-should be created using the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability). In this paper, we report on the construction of a FAIR model catalog for Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling research, a trending paradigm lying at the intersection of conceptual modeling and ontology engineering in which the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and OntoUML emerged among the most adopted technologies. In this initial release, the catalog includes over a hundred models, developed in a variety of contexts and domains. The paper also discusses the research implications for (ontology-driven) conceptual modeling of such a resource.
  2. Ding, J.: Can data die? : why one of the Internet's oldest images lives on wirhout its subjects's consent (2021) 0.03
    0.025747139 = product of:
      0.051494278 = sum of:
        0.040896185 = weight(_text_:data in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040896185 = score(doc=423,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.27619374 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
        0.010598094 = product of:
          0.021196188 = sum of:
            0.021196188 = weight(_text_:processing in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021196188 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046827413 = queryNorm
                0.111815326 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.
    Content
    "Having known Lenna for almost a decade, I have struggled to understand what the story of the image means for what tech culture is and what it is becoming. To me, the crux of the Lenna story is how little power we have over our data and how it is used and abused. This threat seems disproportionately higher for women who are often overrepresented in internet content, but underrepresented in internet company leadership and decision making. Given this reality, engineering and product decisions will continue to consciously (and unconsciously) exclude our needs and concerns. While social norms are changing towards non-consensual data collection and data exploitation, digital norms seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Advancements in machine learning algorithms and data storage capabilities are only making data misuse easier. Whether the outcome is revenge porn or targeted ads, surveillance or discriminatory AI, if we want a world where our data can retire when it's outlived its time, or when it's directly harming our lives, we must create the tools and policies that empower data subjects to have a say in what happens to their data. including allowing their data to die."
  3. Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020) 0.02
    0.020529725 = product of:
      0.0821189 = sum of:
        0.0821189 = weight(_text_:data in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0821189 = score(doc=38,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.55459267 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with different nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data supplier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies. We also evaluate the effective reusability of OCDM according to ontology evaluation practices, mention existing users of OCDM, and discuss the use and impact of OCDM in the wider open science community.
  4. Hausser, R.: Language and nonlanguage cognition (2021) 0.02
    0.020529725 = product of:
      0.0821189 = sum of:
        0.0821189 = weight(_text_:data in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0821189 = score(doc=255,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.55459267 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    A basic distinction in agent-based data-driven Database Semantics (DBS) is between language and nonlanguage cognition. Language cognition transfers content between agents by means of raw data. Nonlanguage cognition maps between content and raw data inside the focus agent. {\it Recognition} applies a concept type to raw data, resulting in a concept token. In language recognition, the focus agent (hearer) takes raw language-data (surfaces) produced by another agent (speaker) as input, while nonlanguage recognition takes raw nonlanguage-data as input. In either case, the output is a content which is stored in the agent's onboard short term memory. {\it Action} adapts a concept type to a purpose, resulting in a token. In language action, the focus agent (speaker) produces language-dependent surfaces for another agent (hearer), while nonlanguage action produces intentions for a nonlanguage purpose. In either case, the output is raw action data. As long as the procedural implementation of place holder values works properly, it is compatible with the DBS requirement of input-output equivalence between the natural prototype and the artificial reconstruction.
  5. Williams, B.: Dimensions & VOSViewer bibliometrics in the reference interview (2020) 0.02
    0.018105512 = product of:
      0.07242205 = sum of:
        0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07242205 = score(doc=5719,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The VOSviewer software provides easy access to bibliometric mapping using data from Dimensions, Scopus and Web of Science. The properly formatted and structured citation data, and the ease in which it can be exported open up new avenues for use during citation searches and eference interviews. This paper details specific techniques for using advanced searches in Dimensions, exporting the citation data, and drawing insights from the maps produced in VOS Viewer. These search techniques and data export practices are fast and accurate enough to build into reference interviews for graduate students, faculty, and post-PhD researchers. The search results derived from them are accurate and allow a more comprehensive view of citation networks embedded in ordinary complex boolean searches.
  6. Isaac, A.; Raemy, J.A.; Meijers, E.; Valk, S. De; Freire, N.: Metadata aggregation via linked data : results of the Europeana Common Culture project (2020) 0.02
    0.017350782 = product of:
      0.06940313 = sum of:
        0.06940313 = weight(_text_:data in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06940313 = score(doc=39,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Digital cultural heritage resources are widely available on the web through the digital libraries of heritage institutions. To address the difficulties of discoverability in cultural heritage, the common practice is metadata aggregation, where centralized efforts like Europeana facilitate discoverability by collecting the resources' metadata. We present the results of the linked data aggregation task conducted within the Europeana Common Culture project, which attempted an innovative approach to aggregation based on linked data made available by cultural heritage institutions. This task ran for one year with participation of eleven organizations, involving the three member roles of the Europeana network: data providers, intermediary aggregators, and the central aggregation hub, Europeana. We report on the challenges that were faced by data providers, the standards and specifications applied, and the resulting aggregated metadata.
  7. Singh, A.; Sinha, U.; Sharma, D.k.: Semantic Web and data visualization (2020) 0.02
    0.017156914 = product of:
      0.068627656 = sum of:
        0.068627656 = weight(_text_:data in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068627656 = score(doc=79,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.46347913 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.
    Series
    Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies book series; vol.32
    Source
    Data visualization and knowledge engineering. Eds. J. Hemanth, et al
  8. Kahlawi, A,: ¬An ontology driven ESCO LOD quality enhancement (2020) 0.01
    0.013439858 = product of:
      0.053759433 = sum of:
        0.053759433 = weight(_text_:data in 5959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053759433 = score(doc=5959,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 5959, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5959)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The labor market is a system that is complex and difficult to manage. To overcome this challenge, the European Union has launched the ESCO project which is a language that aims to describe this labor market. In order to support the spread of this project, its dataset was presented as linked open data (LOD). Since LOD is usable and reusable, a set of conditions have to be met. First, LOD must be feasible and high quality. In addition, it must provide the user with the right answers, and it has to be built according to a clear and correct structure. This study investigates the LOD of ESCO, focusing on data quality and data structure. The former is evaluated through applying a set of SPARQL queries. This provides solutions to improve its quality via a set of rules built in first order logic. This process was conducted based on a new proposed ESCO ontology.
  9. Qi, Q.; Hessen, D.J.; Heijden, P.G.M. van der: Improving information retrieval through correspondenceanalysis instead of latent semantic analysis (2023) 0.01
    0.010973599 = product of:
      0.043894395 = sum of:
        0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043894395 = score(doc=1045,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The initial dimensions extracted by latent semantic analysis (LSA) of a document-term matrixhave been shown to mainly display marginal effects, which are irrelevant for informationretrieval. To improve the performance of LSA, usually the elements of the raw document-term matrix are weighted and the weighting exponent of singular values can be adjusted.An alternative information retrieval technique that ignores the marginal effects is correspon-dence analysis (CA). In this paper, the information retrieval performance of LSA and CA isempirically compared. Moreover, it is explored whether the two weightings also improve theperformance of CA. The results for four empirical datasets show that CA always performsbetter than LSA. Weighting the elements of the raw data matrix can improve CA; however,it is data dependent and the improvement is small. Adjusting the singular value weightingexponent often improves the performance of CA; however, the extent of the improvementdepends on the dataset and the number of dimensions. (PDF) Improving information retrieval through correspondence analysis instead of latent semantic analysis.
  10. Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020) 0.01
    0.009144665 = product of:
      0.03657866 = sum of:
        0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03657866 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
  11. Patriarca, S.: Information literacy gives us the tools to check sources and to verify factual statements : What does Popper`s "Es gibt keine Autoritäten" mean? (2021) 0.01
    0.009144665 = product of:
      0.03657866 = sum of:
        0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03657866 = score(doc=331,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 331, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=331)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Footnote
    Vgl. die Erwiderung: Jörs, B.: Informationskompetenz ist auf domänenspezifisches Vorwissen angewiesen und kann immer nur vorläufig sein: eine Antwort auf Steve Patriarca. Unter: Open Password. 2021, Nr.998 vom 15. November 2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NiwiYTRlYWIxNTJhOTU4IiwwLDAsMzM5LDFd].
    Source
    Open Password. 2021, Nr.993 vom 03. November 2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM2MiwiNjQyMWIyZTI0MzVkIiwwLDAsMzI5LDFd]
  12. Lynch, J.D.; Gibson, J.; Han, M.-J.: Analyzing and normalizing type metadata for a large aggregated digital library (2020) 0.01
    0.009052756 = product of:
      0.036211025 = sum of:
        0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 5720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036211025 = score(doc=5720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5720)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The Illinois Digital Heritage Hub (IDHH) gathers and enhances metadata from contributing institutions around the state of Illinois and provides this metadata to th Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) for greater access. The IDHH helps contributors shape their metadata to the standards recommended and required by the DPLA in part by analyzing and enhancing aggregated metadata. In late 2018, the IDHH undertook a project to address a particularly problematic field, Type metadata. This paper walks through the project, detailing the process of gathering and analyzing metadata using the DPLA API and OpenRefine, data remediation through XSL transformations in conjunction with local improvements by contributing institutions, and the DPLA ingestion system's quality controls.
  13. Hudon, M.: ¬The status of knowledge organization in library and information science master's programs (2021) 0.01
    0.009052756 = product of:
      0.036211025 = sum of:
        0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036211025 = score(doc=697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The content of master's programs accredited by the American Library Association was examined to assess the status of knowledge organization (KO) as a subject in current training. Data collected show that KO remains very visible in a majority of programs, mainly in the form of required and electives courses focusing on descriptive cataloging, classification, and metadata. Observed tendencies include, however, the recent elimination of the required KO course in several programs, the reality that one third of KO electives listed in course catalogs have not been scheduled in the past three years, and the fact that two-thirds of those teaching KO specialize in other areas of information science.
  14. Rockelle Strader, C.: Cataloging to support information literacy : the IFLA Library Reference Model's user tasks in the context of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2021) 0.01
    0.0077595054 = product of:
      0.031038022 = sum of:
        0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031038022 = score(doc=713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=713)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Cataloging practices, as exemplified by the five user tasks of the IFLA Library Reference Model, can support information literacy practices. The six frames of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education are used as lenses to examine the user tasks. Two themes emerge from this examination: context matters, and catalogers must tailor bibliographic descriptions to meet users' expectations and information needs. Catalogers need to solicit feedback from various user communities to reform cataloging practices to remain current and viable. Such conversations will enrich the catalog and enhance (reclaim?) its position as a primary tool for research and learning. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1939828.
  15. Gladun, A.; Rogushina, J.: Development of domain thesaurus as a set of ontology concepts with use of semantic similarity and elements of combinatorial optimization (2021) 0.01
    0.007418666 = product of:
      0.029674664 = sum of:
        0.029674664 = product of:
          0.05934933 = sum of:
            0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05934933 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046827413 = queryNorm
                0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.
  16. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.01
    0.007315732 = product of:
      0.029262928 = sum of:
        0.029262928 = weight(_text_:data in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029262928 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
  17. Pankowski, T.: Ontological databases with faceted queries (2022) 0.01
    0.006466255 = product of:
      0.02586502 = sum of:
        0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02586502 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The success of the use of ontology-based systems depends on efficient and user-friendly methods of formulating queries against the ontology. We propose a method to query a class of ontologies, called facet ontologies ( fac-ontologies ), using a faceted human-oriented approach. A fac-ontology has two important features: (a) a hierarchical view of it can be defined as a nested facet over this ontology and the view can be used as a faceted interface to create queries and to explore the ontology; (b) the ontology can be converted into an ontological database , the ABox of which is stored in a database, and the faceted queries are evaluated against this database. We show that the proposed faceted interface makes it possible to formulate queries that are semantically equivalent to $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{Fac}$$ SROIQ Fac , a limited version of the $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}$$ SROIQ description logic. The TBox of a fac-ontology is divided into a set of rules defining intensional predicates and a set of constraint rules to be satisfied by the database. We identify a class of so-called reflexive weak cycles in a set of constraint rules and propose a method to deal with them in the chase procedure. The considerations are illustrated with solutions implemented in the DAFO system ( data access based on faceted queries over ontologies ).
  18. Frederick, D.E.: ChatGPT: a viral data-driven disruption in the information environment (2023) 0.01
    0.006466255 = product of:
      0.02586502 = sum of:
        0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02586502 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
  19. Ogden, J.; Summers, E.; Walker, S.: Know(ing) Infrastructure : the wayback machine as object and instrument of digital research (2023) 0.01
    0.006466255 = product of:
      0.02586502 = sum of:
        0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02586502 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  20. Jha, A.: Why GPT-4 isn't all it's cracked up to be (2023) 0.01
    0.006401266 = product of:
      0.025605064 = sum of:
        0.025605064 = weight(_text_:data in 923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025605064 = score(doc=923,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.17292464 = fieldWeight in 923, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=923)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    They might appear intelligent, but LLMs are nothing of the sort. They don't understand the meanings of the words they are using, nor the concepts expressed within the sentences they create. When asked how to bring a cow back to life, earlier versions of ChatGPT, for example, which ran on a souped-up version of GPT-3, would confidently provide a list of instructions. So-called hallucinations like this happen because language models have no concept of what a "cow" is or that "death" is a non-reversible state of being. LLMs do not have minds that can think about objects in the world and how they relate to each other. All they "know" is how likely it is that some sets of words will follow other sets of words, having calculated those probabilities from their training data. To make sense of all this, I spoke with Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, for "Babbage", our science and technology podcast. Last year, as the world was transfixed by the sudden appearance of ChatGPT, he made some fascinating predictions about GPT-4.
    People use symbols to think about the world: if I say the words "cat", "house" or "aeroplane", you know instantly what I mean. Symbols can also be used to describe the way things are behaving (running, falling, flying) or they can represent how things should behave in relation to each other (a "+" means add the numbers before and after). Symbolic AI is a way to embed this human knowledge and reasoning into computer systems. Though the idea has been around for decades, it fell by the wayside a few years ago as deep learning-buoyed by the sudden easy availability of lots of training data and cheap computing power-became more fashionable. In the near future at least, there's no doubt people will find LLMs useful. But whether they represent a critical step on the path towards AGI, or rather just an intriguing detour, remains to be seen."