Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03065202 = sum of:
  0.012726757 = product of:
    0.07636054 = sum of:
      0.07636054 = weight(_text_:after in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07636054 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2253881 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044101086 = queryNorm
          0.33879578 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.017925264 = product of:
    0.03585053 = sum of:
      0.03585053 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03585053 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15443449 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044101086 = 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)

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

0.01100228 = product of:
  0.02200456 = sum of:
    0.02200456 = product of:
      0.13202736 = sum of:
        0.13202736 = weight(_text_:author's in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13202736 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29636607 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044101086 = queryNorm
            0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.

0.010562563 = product of:
  0.021125127 = sum of:
    0.021125127 = product of:
      0.042250253 = sum of:
        0.042250253 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042250253 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15443449 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044101086 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

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

0.0053028148 = product of:
  0.0106056295 = sum of:
    0.0106056295 = product of:
      0.06363378 = sum of:
        0.06363378 = weight(_text_:after in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06363378 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2253881 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044101086 = queryNorm
            0.2823298 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.