Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.03847589 = product of:
  0.07695178 = sum of:
    0.07695178 = sum of:
      0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03456243 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 4873, 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=4873)
      0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238935 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Project SSG-FI at SUB Göttingen provides special subject gateways to international high quality Internet resources for scientific users. Internet sites are selected by subject specialists and described using an extension of qualified Dublin Core metadata. A basic evaluation is added. These descriptions are freely available and can be searched and browsed. These are now subject gateways for 3 subject ares: earth sciences (GeoGuide); mathematics (MathGuide); and Anglo-American culture (split into HistoryGuide and AnglistikGuide). Together they receive about 3.300 'hard' requests per day, thus reaching over 1 million requests per year. The project SSG-FI behind these guides is open to collaboration. Institutions and private persons wishing to contribute can notify the SSG-FI team or send full data sets. Regular contributors can request registration with the project to access the database via the Internet and create and edit records

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:42

0.034084413 = product of:
  0.06816883 = sum of:
    0.06816883 = sum of:
      0.039909262 = weight(_text_:data in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039909262 = score(doc=3231,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.028259566 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028259566 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ADEPT is a 5-year project whose goals are to develop, deploy, and evaluate inquiry learning capabilities for the Alexandria Digital Library, an extant digital library of primary sources in geography. We interviewed nine geography faculty members who teach undergraduate courses about their information seeking for research and teaching and their use of information resources in teaching. These data were supplemented by interviews with four faculty members from another ADEPT study about the nature of knowledge in geography. Among our key findings are that geography faculty are more likely to encounter useful teaching resources while seeking research resources than vice versa, although the influence goes in both directions. Their greatest information needs are for research data, maps, and images. They desire better searching by concept or theme, in addition to searching by location and place name. They make extensive use of their own research resources in their teaching. Among the implications for functionality and architecture of geographic digital libraries for educational use are that personal digital libraries are essential, because individual faculty members have personalized approaches to selecting, collecting, and organizing teaching resources. Digital library services for research and teaching should include the ability to import content from common office software and to store content in standard formats that can be exported to other applications. Digital library services can facilitate sharing among faculty but cannot overcome barriers such as intellectual property rights, access to proprietary research data, or the desire of individuals to maintain control over their own resources. Faculty use of primary and secondary resources needs to be better understood if we are to design successful digital libraries for research and teaching.

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

0.024978163 = product of:
  0.049956325 = sum of:
    0.049956325 = product of:
      0.09991265 = sum of:
        0.09991265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09991265 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.021194674 = product of:
  0.04238935 = sum of:
    0.04238935 = product of:
      0.0847787 = sum of:
        0.0847787 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0847787 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.017662229 = product of:
  0.035324458 = sum of:
    0.035324458 = product of:
      0.070648916 = sum of:
        0.070648916 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070648916 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.016100824 = product of:
  0.032201648 = sum of:
    0.032201648 = product of:
      0.064403296 = sum of:
        0.064403296 = weight(_text_:data in 5502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064403296 = score(doc=5502,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.39059696 = fieldWeight in 5502, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an increasing number of open government data (OGD) portals are created, an evaluation method is needed to assess these portals. In this study, we drew from the existing principles and evaluation methods to develop a User Interaction Framework, with concrete criteria in five dimensions: Access, Trust, Understand, Engage-integrate, and Participate. The framework was then used to evaluate the current OGD sites created and maintained by 34 U.S. municipal government agencies. The results show that, overall, portals perform well in terms of providing access, but not so well in helping users understand and engage with data. These findings indicate room for improvement in multiple areas and suggest potential roles for information professionals as data mediators. The study also reveals that portals using the Socrata platform performed better, regarding user access, trust, engagement, and participation. However, the variability among portals indicates that some portals should improve their platforms to achieve greater user engagement and participation. In addition, city governments need to develop clear plans about what data should be available and how to make them available to their public.

0.014965973 = product of:
  0.029931946 = sum of:
    0.029931946 = product of:
      0.05986389 = sum of:
        0.05986389 = weight(_text_:data in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05986389 = score(doc=3393,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 3393, 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=3393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Digital Libraries currently face the challenge of integrating many different types of research information (e.g. publications, primary data, expert's profiles, institutional profiles, project information etc.) according to their scientific users' needs. To date no general, integrated model for knowledge organization and retrieval in Digital Libraries exists. This causes the problem of structural and semantic heterogeneity due to the wide range of metadata standards, indexing vocabularies and indexing approaches used for different types of information. The research presented in this paper focuses on areas in which activities are being undertaken in the field of Digital Libraries in order to treat semantic interoperability problems. We present a model for the integrated retrieval of factual and textual data which combines multiple approaches to semantic interoperability und sets them into context. Embedded in the research cycle, traditional content indexing methods for publications meet the newer, but rarely used ontology-based approaches which seem to be better suited for representing complex information like the one contained in survey data. The benefits of our model are (1) easy re-use of available knowledge organisation systems and (2) reduced efforts for domain modelling with ontologies.

0.014401014 = product of:
  0.028802028 = sum of:
    0.028802028 = product of:
      0.057604056 = sum of:
        0.057604056 = weight(_text_:data in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057604056 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

0.014401014 = product of:
  0.028802028 = sum of:
    0.028802028 = product of:
      0.057604056 = sum of:
        0.057604056 = weight(_text_:data in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057604056 = score(doc=3368,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The explosive growth of literature and data in the life sciences challenges researchers to keep track of current advancements in their disciplines. Novel approaches in the life science like the One Health paradigm require integrated methodologies in order to link and connect heterogeneous information from databases and literature resources. Current publications in the life sciences are increasingly characterized by the employment of trans-disciplinary methodologies comprising molecular and cell biology, genetics, genomic, epigenomic, transcriptional and proteomic high throughput technologies with data from humans, plants, and animals. The literature search engine LIVIVO empowers retrieval functionality by incorporating various literature resources from medicine, health, environment, agriculture and nutrition. LIVIVO is developed in-house by ZB MED - Information Centre for Life Sciences. It provides a user-friendly and usability-tested search interface with a corpus of 55 Million citations derived from 50 databases. Standardized application programming interfaces are available for data export and high throughput retrieval. The search functions allow for semantic retrieval with filtering options based on life science entities. The service oriented architecture of LIVIVO uses four different implementation layers to deliver search services. A Knowledge Environment is developed by ZB MED to deal with the heterogeneity of data as an integrative approach to model, store, and link semantic concepts within literature resources and databases. Future work will focus on the exploitation of life science ontologies and on the employment of NLP technologies in order to improve query expansion, filters in faceted search, and concept based relevancy rankings in LIVIVO.

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.014110054 = product of:
  0.028220108 = sum of:
    0.028220108 = product of:
      0.056440216 = sum of:
        0.056440216 = weight(_text_:data in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056440216 = score(doc=1194,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.342302 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative was formed to encourage scholarly communication and the sharing of data among researchers who emphasize the relationships between place, time, and topic in the study of culture and history. In an effort to develop better tools and practices, The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative has sponsored the collaborative development of software for downloading and editing geo-temporal data to create dynamic maps, a clearinghouse of shared datasets accessible through a map-based interface, projects on format and content standards for gazetteers and time period directories, studies to improve geo-temporal aspects in online catalogs, good practice guidelines for preparing e-publications with dynamic geo-temporal displays, and numerous international conferences. The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative (ECAI) grew out of discussions among an international group of scholars interested in religious history and area studies. It was established as a unit under the Dean of International and Area Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. ECAI's mission is to promote an international collaborative effort to transform humanities scholarship through use of the digital environment to share data and by placing greater emphasis on the notions of place and time. Professor Lewis Lancaster is the Director. Professor Michael Buckland, with a library and information studies background, joined the effort as Co-Director in 2000. Assistance from the Lilly Foundation, the California Digital Library (University of California), and other sources has enabled ECAI to nurture a community; to develop a catalog ("clearinghouse") of Internet-accessible georeferenced resources; to support the development of software for obtaining, editing, manipulating, and dynamically visualizing geo-temporally encoded data; and to undertake research and development projects as needs and resources determine. Several hundred scholars worldwide, from a wide range of disciplines, are informally affiliated with ECAI, all interested in shared use of historical and cultural data. The Academia Sinica (Taiwan), The British Library, and the Arts and Humanities Data Service (UK) are among the well-known affiliates. However, ECAI mainly comprises individual scholars and small teams working on their own small projects on a very wide range of cultural, social, and historical topics. Numerous specialist committees have been fostering standardization and collaboration by area and by themes such as trade-routes, cities, religion, and sacred sites.

0.012825297 = product of:
  0.025650594 = sum of:
    0.025650594 = sum of:
      0.01152081 = weight(_text_:data in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01152081 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.0698721 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.014129783 = weight(_text_:22 in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014129783 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Dies wurde nicht zuletzt in der Diskussion zu dem äußerst informativen Referat von Uwe Rosemann (Hannover) zur aktuellen Urheberrechtsdebatte und zur Klage gegen subito beklagt - Bibliothekare seien hier zur Schaffung des Problembewusstseins an ihren Hochschulen aufgefordert, so der Konsens der Diskutanten. Bedauert wurde in dieser Sektion die kurzfristige Absage des Rechtswissenschaftlers Thomas Hoeren (Münster), dessen Ausführungen zu aktuellen Rechtsfragen der Bibliotheken sich jedoch mittlerweile online nachlesen lassen. Ein Beispiel für unbefriedigende Kommunikation- und Kooperationsstrukturen im Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesens führte Silke Schomburg vom Hochschulbibliothekszentrum NRW (Köln) in ihrer Bestandsaufnahme zum Thema Open Archives Initiative in Deutschland an. Sie wies darauf hin, dass wissenschaftliche Dokumente trotz verfügbarer Standards immer noch viel zu häufig auf Servern ohne OAI-Schnittstelle liegen, was zu einer Situation führt, die weder im Interesse der Produzenten und Nutzer dieses Wissens sein kann, noch in dem der Bibliotheken, die zu seiner Erschließung aufwändigen Ressourceneinsatz betreiben. Angesichts knapper personeller und finanzieller Spielräume sollte die verstärkte Kooperation von Data- und Service-Providern von beiden Seiten als eine Selbstverständlichkeit angesehen werden, was aber, so das auch in der Diskussion bestätigte Fazit, noch zu selten der Fall ist. Hans-Joachim Wätjen (Oldenburg) machte in diesem Zusammenhang mit seinem Beitrag zum Thema Open Access in Deutschland deutlich, dass die Versäumnisse durchaus auch auf Seiten der Bibliotheken zu suchen sind. Weder komme es zwischen den Bibliotheken in ausreichendem Maße zum Datenaustausch über Open Access-Publikationen, noch würden solche Publikationen durch die Bibliotheken systematisch eingesammelt. Wenn aber die "Bringschuld" bei den Wissenschaftlern verbleibe, die darüber hinaus noch von "lästigen Metadaten- und Upload-Formularen" abgeschreckt würden, so trage dies nicht zur Attraktivitätssteigerung des Open Access-Gedankens bei ihnen bei. Auf die Wissenschaftler - also die Produzenten und Konsumenten wissenschaftlicher Informationen - kommt es, so war auf der Tagung wiederholt zu hören, schlussendlich an, wenn es um die Etablierung neuer Publikations- und Archivierungsmodelle unter Beteiligung der Bibliotheken geht.

Date

22. 1.2005 19:05:37

0.012489081 = product of:
  0.024978163 = sum of:
    0.024978163 = product of:
      0.049956325 = sum of:
        0.049956325 = weight(_text_:22 in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049956325 = score(doc=5801,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:22

0.012471643 = product of:
  0.024943287 = sum of:
    0.024943287 = product of:
      0.049886573 = sum of:
        0.049886573 = weight(_text_:data in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049886573 = score(doc=2596,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To describe how information visualization can be used in the design of interface tools for large-scale repositories. Design/methodology/approach - One challenge for designers in the context of large-scale repositories is to create interface tools that help users find specific information of interest. In order to be most effective, these tools need to leverage the cognitive characteristics of the target users. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the authors' target users are scientists and engineers who can be characterized as higher-order, analytical thinkers. In this paper, the authors describe a visualization tool they have created for making the authors' large-scale digital object repositories more usable for them: SearchGraph, which facilitates data set analysis by displaying search results in the form of a two- or three-dimensional interactive scatter plot. Findings - Using SearchGraph, users can view a condensed, abstract visualization of search results. They can view the same dataset from multiple perspectives by manipulating several display, sort, and filter options. Doing so allows them to see different patterns in the dataset. For example, they can apply a logarithmic transformation in order to create more scatter in a dense cluster of data points or they can apply filters in order to focus on a specific subset of data points. Originality/value - SearchGraph is a creative solution to the problem of how to design interface tools for large-scale repositories. It is particularly appropriate for the authors' target users, who are scientists and engineers. It extends the work of the first two authors on ActiveGraph, a read-write digital library visualization tool.

0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=4874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:00

0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:37:55