Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027563075 = product of:
  0.09647076 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
    0.015188723 = product of:
      0.030377446 = sum of:
        0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377446 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a study that explores mental associations made by novices viewing art images. In a controlled environment, 20 Taiwanese college students responded to the question "What does the painting remind you of?" after viewing each digitized image of 15 oil paintings by a famous Taiwanese artist. Rather than focusing on the representation or interpretation of art, the study attempted to solicit information about how non-experts are stimulated by art. This paper reports on the analysis of participant responses to three of the images, and describes a12-type taxonomy of association emerged from the analysis. While 9 of the types are derived and adapted from facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, three new types - Artistic Influence Association, Reactive Association, and Prototype Association - are discovered. The conclusion briefly discusses both the significance of the findings and the implications for future research.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Der Begriff Inhaltsanalyse wird je nach wissenschaftlicher Provenienz oder Bedeutungszusammenhang unterschiedlich definiert: Innerhalb der bibliothekarischen Praxis wird die Erfassung des Inhaltes eines vorliegenden Dokumentes für die Zwecke der Indexierung als Inhaltsanalyse bezeichnet, philologische Textinterpretationen oder sprachwissenschaftliche Textanalysen werden gelegentlich als Inhaltsanalysen etikettiert, ebenso die Interpretation von Interviewaussagen in der Psychologie und qualitativen Sozialforschung. Der vorliegende Beitrag bezieht sich explizit auf die sozialwissenschaftliche Methode der systematischen Inhaltsanalyse. Allerdings ist auch durch diese Eingrenzung noch keine hinreichende definitorische Klarheit geschaffen, da eine Unterscheidung in qualitative und quantitative Verfahren vorzunehmen ist.

0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=3584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 3584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3584)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Emotional meaning is critical for users to retrieve relevant images. However, because emotional meanings are subject to the individual viewer's interpretation, they are considered difficult to implement when designing image retrieval systems. With the intent of making an image's emotional messages more readily accessible, this study aims to test a new approach designed to enhance the accessibility of emotional meanings during the image search process. This approach utilizes image searchers' emotional reactions, which are quantitatively measured. Broadly used quantitative measurements for emotional reactions, Semantic Differential (SD) and Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), were selected as tools for gathering users' reactions. Emotional representations obtained from these two tools were compared with three image perception tasks: searching, describing, and sorting. A survey questionnaire with a set of 12 images was administered to 58 participants, which were tagged with basic emotions. Results demonstrated that the SAM represents basic emotions on 2-dimensional plots (pleasure and arousal dimensions), and this representation consistently corresponded to the three image perception tasks. This study provided experimental evidence that quantitative users' reactions can be a useful complementary element of current image retrieval/indexing systems. Integrating users' reactions obtained from the SAM into image browsing systems would reduce the efforts of human indexers as well as improve the effectiveness of image retrieval systems.

0.0025571547 = product of:
  0.017900083 = sum of:
    0.017900083 = product of:
      0.035800166 = sum of:
        0.035800166 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035800166 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, 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=4888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22