Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004009403 = product of:
  0.036084626 = sum of:
    0.036084626 = product of:
      0.07216925 = sum of:
        0.07216925 = weight(_text_:seine in 4053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07216925 = score(doc=4053,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15378642 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.904543 = idf(docFreq=890, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.46928233 = fieldWeight in 4053, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.904543 = idf(docFreq=890, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Wie kann man ein Bild verstehen? Indem man die Erinnerung und das Gedächtnis befragt, die in einem Bild am Werk sind, das »Nachleben«, so die Antwort Georges Didi-Hubermans. Im Anschluß an diesen aus seiner Sicht zu Unrecht aufgegebenen Begriff Aby Warburgs nähert sich Didi-Huberman dem Phantomcharakter der Bilder, ihrer Fähigkeit zu spukhafter Wiederkehr. Aby Warburg hat das »Nachleben« der Bilder als erster zum zentralen Motiv seiner anthropologischen Erforschung der westlichen Kunst gemacht. In seiner meisterhaften Studie untersucht Didi-Huberman dieses Motiv im Hinblick auf seine Logik, seine Quellen und seine philosophischen Hintergrundannahmen. Indem er Warburg mit Jacob Burckhardt, Friedrich Nietzsche und Sigmund Freud ins Gespräch bringt, wirft er einen faszinierenden Blick auf das paradoxe Leben der Bilder zwischen Zeitgebundenheit und Ewigkeit. »Das fruchtbare und originelle Denken von Georges Didi-Huberman hört nicht auf, uns zu beflügeln.«

0.0022708573 = product of:
  0.020437716 = sum of:
    0.020437716 = product of:
      0.061313145 = sum of:
        0.061313145 = weight(_text_:quality in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061313145 = score(doc=4117,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14174858 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5206327 = idf(docFreq=1307, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.43254858 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.5206327 = idf(docFreq=1307, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

0.0020292476 = product of:
  0.018263228 = sum of:
    0.018263228 = product of:
      0.036526456 = sum of:
        0.036526456 = weight(_text_:web in 965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036526456 = score(doc=965,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10233035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 965, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to analyze users' behavior during image retrieval exercises. Results revealed that users tend to follow a set search strategy: firstly they input one or two keyword search terms one after another and view the images generated by their initial search and after they navigate their way around the web by using the 'back to home' or 'previous page' buttons. These results are consistent with existing Web research. Many of the actions recorded revealed that subjects behavior differed depending on if the task set was presented as a closed or open task. In contrast no differences were found for the time subjects took to perform a single action or their use of the AND operator.

0.0018541474 = product of:
  0.016687326 = sum of:
    0.016687326 = product of:
      0.050061975 = sum of:
        0.050061975 = weight(_text_:quality in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050061975 = score(doc=172,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14174858 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5206327 = idf(docFreq=1307, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.35317445 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5206327 = idf(docFreq=1307, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper is a current assessment of the status of metadata creation and mapping between catalogerdefined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. The metadata elements that evince the most frequently inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata application are identified. As well, the most frequently occurring locally added metadata elements and associated pattern development are examined. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections is analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to be refined in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.

0.0014494626 = product of:
  0.013045163 = sum of:
    0.013045163 = product of:
      0.026090326 = sum of:
        0.026090326 = weight(_text_:web in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026090326 = score(doc=4100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10233035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.

0.0010249248 = product of:
  0.009224323 = sum of:
    0.009224323 = product of:
      0.018448645 = sum of:
        0.018448645 = weight(_text_:web in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018448645 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10233035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

For many years, the Web became an important media for the diffusion of multilingual resources. Linguistic differenees still form a major obstacle to scientific, cultural, and educational exchange. Besides this linguistic diversity, a multitude of databases and collections now contain documents in various formats, which may also adversely affect the retrieval process. This paper describes a research project aiming to verify the existing relations between two indexing approaches: traditional image indexing recommending the use of controlled vocabularies or free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary, and their respective performance for image retrieval, in a multilingual context. This research also compares image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language; and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. This research will indicate whether one of these indexing approaches surpasses the other, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the image searchers. This paper presents the context and the problem statement of the research project. The experiment carried out is also described, as well as the data collection methods

8.199398E-4 = product of:
  0.0073794583 = sum of:
    0.0073794583 = product of:
      0.014758917 = sum of:
        0.014758917 = weight(_text_:web in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014758917 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10233035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Probleme für den Schutz der Persönlichkeitsrechte wirft das Projekt einer schwedischen Firma auf, die eine Internet-Suchmaschine mit Gesichtserkennung entwickelt. Die Technik der Firma Polar Rose scannt öffentlich verfügbare Fotos ein, sortiert sie nach rund 90 verschiedenen Merkmalen und erstellt so eine Datenbank. Die Suchmaschine soll in der Lage sein, ein beliebiges Foto mit diesen Daten abzugleichen, die Identität der gezeigten Person zu ermitteln und eine Liste mit Web-Seiten zu liefern, auf denen diese Person zu sehen ist. Bei Tests. mit 10 000 Fotos habe es in 95 Prozent der Fälle eine zuverlässige Erkennung gegeben, sagt der Vorstandschef von Polar Rose, Nikolaj Nyholm. Allerdings schränkt er ein, dass die Genauigkeit mit wachsender Datenbasis vermutlich geringer wird, weil bei Millionen und vielleicht Milliarden von Personenfotos die Wahrscheinlichkeit zunimmt, dass sich zwei oder mehr Personen sehr ähnlich sehen. Deshalb sollen die Nutzer des geplanten Internet-Dienstes selbst Informationen beisteuern, etwa die Namen von abgebildeten Personen. Polar Rose verfolgt das Konzept, die zahllosen Fotos, die sich etwa bei Flickr oder Myspace finden, besser durchsuchbar zu machen, als bei der herkömmlichen Bildersuche. Auch Personen, die nur im Hintergrund eines Fotos zu sehen sind, sollen auf diese Weise erfasst werden. Was aber ist, wenn Arbeitgeber, Polizei oder misstrauische Partner auf diese Weise die Anwesenheit einer Person an einem bestimmten Ort aufdecken, die eigentlich vertraulich bleiben sollte? "Ich glaube nicht, dass wir da schon alle Antworten haben", räumt Nyholm ein. Der Leiter der Organisation Privacy International, Simon Davies, sieht sich durch Techniken wie die von Polar Rose in seiner Einschätzung bestätigt, dass es Grenzen für die Internet-Suche geben müsse. Andernfalls werde die Suche im Internet in Dimensionen vorstoßen, "die unendlich mächtiger sind, als wir es uns jemals vorstellen konnten". Davies fordert eine Debatte über eine Begrenzung der Internet-Suche und über ein Mitspracherecht von einzelnen Personen bei der Nutzung ihrer Daten. Die Verfügbarkeit von Fotos im Internet sei kein Freibrief für massenhafte Aufbereitung in Datenbanken.

7.080489E-4 = product of:
  0.0063724397 = sum of:
    0.0063724397 = product of:
      0.012744879 = sum of:
        0.012744879 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012744879 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109803066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031355914 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12