Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.014208811 = product of:
  0.056835245 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 3607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=3607,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3607, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3607)
    0.048164483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048164483 = score(doc=3607,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.442117 = fieldWeight in 3607, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3607)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The abundance of medical resources has encouraged the development of systems that allow for efficient searches of information in large medical image data sets. State-of-the-art image retrieval models are classified into three categories: content-based (visual) models, textual models, and combined models. Content-based models use visual features to answer image queries, textual image retrieval models use word matching to answer textual queries, and combined image retrieval models, use both textual and visual features to answer queries. Nevertheless, most of previous works in this field have used the same image retrieval model independently of the query type. In this article, we define a list of generic and specific medical query features and exploit them in an association rule mining technique to discover correlations between query features and image retrieval models. Based on these rules, we propose to use an associative classifier (NaiveClass) to find the best suitable retrieval model given a new textual query. We also propose a second associative classifier (SmartClass) to select the most appropriate default class for the query. Experiments are performed on Medical ImageCLEF queries from 2008 to 2012 to evaluate the impact of the proposed query features on the classification performance. The results show that combining our proposed specific and generic query features is effective in query classification.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1323-1334

0.012645159 = product of:
  0.050580636 = sum of:
    0.012743366 = weight(_text_:information in 1326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012743366 = score(doc=1326,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1326, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1326)
    0.03783727 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03783727 = score(doc=1326,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 1326, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1326)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The effective use of corporate memory is becoming increasingly important because every aspect of e-business requires access to information repositories. Unfortunately, less-than-satisfying effectiveness in state-of-the-art information-retrieval techniques is well known, even for some of the best search engines such as Google. In this study, the authors resolve this retrieval ineffectiveness problem by developing a new framework for predicting query performance, which is the first step toward better retrieval effectiveness. Specifically, they examine the relationship between query performance and query context. A query context consists of the query itself, the document collection, and the interaction between the two. The authors first analyze the characteristics of query context and develop various features for predicting query performance. Then, they propose a context-sensitive model for predicting query performance based on the characteristics of the query and the document collection. Finally, they validate this model with respect to five real-world collections of documents and demonstrate its utility in routing queries to the correct repository with high accuracy.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1597-1614

0.010909341 = product of:
  0.043637365 = sum of:
    0.012743366 = weight(_text_:information in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012743366 = score(doc=92,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
    0.030894 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030894 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In this paper the authors will present research on the combination of two methods of data mining: text classification and maximal association rules. Text classification has been the focus of interest of many researchers for a long time. However, the results take the form of lists of words (classes) that people often do not know what to do with. The use of maximal association rules induced a number of advantages: (1) the detection of dependencies and correlations between the relevant units of information (words) of different classes, (2) the extraction of hidden knowledge, often relevant, from a large volume of data. The authors will show how this combination can improve the process of information retrieval.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.010324729 = product of:
  0.041298915 = sum of:
    0.010404914 = weight(_text_:information in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010404914 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
    0.030894 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030894 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Electronic discovery (eDiscovery) is the process of collecting and analyzing electronic documents to determine their relevance to a legal matter. Office technology has advanced and eased the requirements necessary to create a document. As such, the volume of data has outgrown the manual processes previously used to make relevance judgments. Methods of text mining and information retrieval have been put to use in eDiscovery to help tame the volume of data; however, the results have been uneven. This chapter looks at the historical bias of the collection process. The authors examine how tools like classifiers, latent semantic analysis, and non-negative matrix factorization deal with nuances of the collection process.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.009562846 = product of:
  0.038251385 = sum of:
    0.0073573855 = weight(_text_:information in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073573855 = score(doc=521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
    0.030894 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030894 = score(doc=521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Applying text mining techniques to legal issues has been an emerging research topic in recent years. Although some previous studies focused on assisting professionals in the retrieval of related legal documents, they did not take into account the general public and their difficulty in describing legal problems in professional legal terms. Because this problem has not been addressed by previous research, this study aims to design a text-mining-based method that allows the general public to use everyday vocabulary to search for and retrieve criminal judgments. The experimental results indicate that our method can help the general public, who are not familiar with professional legal terms, to acquire relevant criminal judgments more accurately and effectively.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.280-290

0.0050631035 = product of:
  0.020252414 = sum of:
    0.010404914 = weight(_text_:information in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010404914 = score(doc=3464,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
    0.0098475 = product of:
      0.0295425 = sum of:
        0.0295425 = weight(_text_:29 in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0295425 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266875 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

We propose a new hybrid clustering framework to incorporate text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. The framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. To improve the flexibility and the efficiency of processing large-scale data, we propose an information-based weighting scheme to leverage the effect of multiple data sources in hybrid clustering. Three different algorithms are extended by the proposed weighting scheme and they are employed on a large journal set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The clustering performance of the proposed algorithms is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation methods, and they were cross-compared with alternative methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed weighted hybrid clustering strategy is superior to other methods in clustering performance and efficiency. The proposed approach also provides a more refined structural mapping of journal sets, which is useful for monitoring and detecting new trends in different scientific fields.

Date

1. 6.2010 9:29:57

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.6, S.1105-1119

0.0050631035 = product of:
  0.020252414 = sum of:
    0.010404914 = weight(_text_:information in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010404914 = score(doc=1205,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.0098475 = product of:
      0.0295425 = sum of:
        0.0295425 = weight(_text_:29 in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0295425 = score(doc=1205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266875 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Text mining and machine learning methodologies have been applied toward knowledge discovery in several domains, such as biomedicine and business. Interestingly, in the business domain, the text mining and machine learning community has minimally explored company annual reports with their mandatory disclosures. In this study, we explore the question "How can annual reports be used to predict change in company performance from one year to the next?" from a text mining perspective. Our article contributes a systematic study of the potential of company mandatory disclosures using a computational viewpoint in the following aspects: (a) We characterize our research problem along distinct dimensions to gain a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the capacity of supervised learning methods in predicting change in company performance using annual reports, and (b) our findings from unbiased systematic experiments provide further evidence about the economic incentives faced by analysts in their stock recommendations and speculations on analysts having access to more information in producing earnings forecast.

Date

29. 1.2014 16:46:40

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.400-413

0.0042192535 = product of:
  0.016877014 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=967,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
    0.008206251 = product of:
      0.024618752 = sum of:
        0.024618752 = weight(_text_:29 in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024618752 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266875 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Because of Twitter's popularity and the viral nature of information dissemination on Twitter, predicting which Twitter topics will become popular in the near future becomes a task of considerable economic importance. Many Twitter topics are annotated by hashtags. In this article, we propose methods to predict the popularity of new hashtags on Twitter by formulating the problem as a classification task. We use five standard classification models (i.e., Naïve bayes, k-nearest neighbors, decision trees, support vector machines, and logistic regression) for prediction. The main challenge is the identification of effective features for describing new hashtags. We extract 7 content features from a hashtag string and the collection of tweets containing the hashtag and 11 contextual features from the social graph formed by users who have adopted the hashtag. We conducted experiments on a Twitter data set consisting of 31 million tweets from 2 million Singapore-based users. The experimental results show that the standard classifiers using the extracted features significantly outperform the baseline methods that do not use these features. Among the five classifiers, the logistic regression model performs the best in terms of the Micro-F1 measure. We also observe that contextual features are more effective than content features.

Date

25. 6.2013 19:05:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1399-1410

0.0042192535 = product of:
  0.016877014 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 3682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=3682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3682)
    0.008206251 = product of:
      0.024618752 = sum of:
        0.024618752 = weight(_text_:29 in 3682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024618752 = score(doc=3682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266875 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3682)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Analyzing large quantities of real-world textual data has the potential to provide new insights for researchers. However, such data present challenges for both human and computational methods, requiring a diverse range of specialist skills, often shared across a number of individuals. In this paper we use the analysis of a real-world data set as our case study, and use this exploration as a demonstration of our "insight workflow," which we present for use and adaptation by other researchers. The data we use are impact case study documents collected as part of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), consisting of 6,679 documents and 6.25 million words; the analysis was commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (published as report HEFCE 2015). In our exploration and analysis we used a variety of techniques, ranging from keyword in context and frequency information to more sophisticated methods (topic modeling), with these automated techniques providing an empirical point of entry for in-depth and intensive human analysis. We present the 60 topics to demonstrate the output of our methods, and illustrate how the variety of analysis techniques can be combined to provide insights. We note potential limitations and propose future work.

Date

16.11.2017 14:00:29

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.7, S.1671-1686

0.004200798 = product of:
  0.016803192 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=1605,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.00813243 = product of:
      0.024397288 = sum of:
        0.024397288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024397288 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12611638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22

0.0035843514 = product of:
  0.014337406 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 3059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=3059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3059)
    0.008206251 = product of:
      0.024618752 = sum of:
        0.024618752 = weight(_text_:29 in 3059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024618752 = score(doc=3059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266875 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3059, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3059)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

21. 7.2016 19:29:19

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.2016-2031

0.003565896 = product of:
  0.014263584 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
    0.00813243 = product of:
      0.024397288 = sum of:
        0.024397288 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024397288 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12611638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 668, 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=668)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:43:01

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.574-586

0.003565896 = product of:
  0.014263584 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=5011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5011)
    0.00813243 = product of:
      0.024397288 = sum of:
        0.024397288 = weight(_text_:22 in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024397288 = score(doc=5011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12611638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036014426 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5011, 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=5011)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

7. 3.2019 16:32:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.4, S.402-411

0.0027306697 = product of:
  0.021845357 = sum of:
    0.021845357 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021845357 = score(doc=4097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10894058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.002145904 = product of:
  0.017167233 = sum of:
    0.017167233 = weight(_text_:information in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017167233 = score(doc=4676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4676)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper discusses an approach of collecting qualitative data on human information behaviour that is based on mining web data using search engines. The approach is technically the same that has been used for some time in webometric research to make statistical inferences on web data, but the present paper shows how the same tools and data collecting methods can be used to gather data for qualitative data analysis on human information behaviour.

Source

Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker

0.002145904 = product of:
  0.017167233 = sum of:
    0.017167233 = weight(_text_:information in 1599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017167233 = score(doc=1599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1599)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.121-155

0.001877275 = product of:
  0.0150182 = sum of:
    0.0150182 = weight(_text_:information in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0150182 = score(doc=1001,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

When it comes to evaluating online information experiences, what metrics matter? We conducted a study in which 30 people browsed and selected content within an online news website. Data collected included psychometric scales (User Engagement, Cognitive Absorption, System Usability Scales), self-reported interest in news content, and performance metrics (i.e., reading time, browsing time, total time, number of pages visited, and use of recommended links); a subset of the participants had their physiological responses recorded during the interaction (i.e., heart rate, electrodermal activity, electrocmytogram). Findings demonstrated the concurrent validity of the psychometric scales and interest ratings and revealed that increased time on tasks, number of pages visited, and use of recommended links were not necessarily indicative of greater self-reported engagement, cognitive absorption, or perceived usability. Positive ratings of news content were associated with lower physiological activity. The implications of this research are twofold. First, we propose that user experience is a useful framework for studying online information interactions and will result in a broader conceptualization of information interaction and its evaluation. Second, we advocate a mixed-methods approach to measurement that employs a suite of metrics capable of capturing the pragmatic (e.g., usability) and hedonic (e.g., fun, engagement) aspects of information interactions. We underscore the importance of using multiple measures in information research, because our results emphasize that performance and physiological data must be interpreted in the context of users' subjective experiences.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1543-1556

0.0017341523 = product of:
  0.013873219 = sum of:
    0.013873219 = weight(_text_:information in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013873219 = score(doc=646,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Everything changes, everything stays the same? - Understanding information spaces : Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017), Berlin/Germany, 13th - 15th March 2017. Eds.: M. Gäde, V. Trkulja u. V. Petras

0.0017137097 = product of:
  0.013709677 = sum of:
    0.013709677 = weight(_text_:information in 4367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013709677 = score(doc=4367,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4367, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4367)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Information extraction is an important text-mining task that aims at extracting prespecified types of information from large text collections and making them available in structured representations such as databases. In the biomedical domain, information extraction can be applied to help biologists make the most use of their digital-literature archives. Currently, there are large amounts of biomedical literature that contain rich information about biomedical substances. Extracting such knowledge requires a good named entity recognition technique. In this article, we combine conditional random fields (CRFs), a state-of-the-art sequence-labeling algorithm, with two semisupervised learning techniques, bootstrapping and feature sampling, to recognize disease names from biomedical literature. Two data-processing strategies for each technique also were analyzed: one sequentially processing unlabeled data partitions and another one processing unlabeled data partitions in a round-robin fashion. The experimental results showed the advantage of semisupervised learning techniques given limited labeled training data. Specifically, CRFs with bootstrapping implemented in sequential fashion outperformed strictly supervised CRFs for disease name recognition. The project was supported by NIH/NLM Grant R33 LM07299-01, 2002-2005.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.727-737

0.0015327886 = product of:
  0.012262309 = sum of:
    0.012262309 = weight(_text_:information in 713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012262309 = score(doc=713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=713)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried