Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024431534 = product of:
  0.04886307 = sum of:
    0.04886307 = product of:
      0.09772614 = sum of:
        0.09772614 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09772614 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.024431534 = product of:
  0.04886307 = sum of:
    0.04886307 = product of:
      0.09772614 = sum of:
        0.09772614 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09772614 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.024431534 = product of:
  0.04886307 = sum of:
    0.04886307 = product of:
      0.09772614 = sum of:
        0.09772614 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09772614 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.024431534 = product of:
  0.04886307 = sum of:
    0.04886307 = product of:
      0.09772614 = sum of:
        0.09772614 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09772614 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.014227318 = product of:
  0.028454635 = sum of:
    0.028454635 = product of:
      0.05690927 = sum of:
        0.05690927 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05690927 = score(doc=4279,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.3475454 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.013142631 = product of:
  0.026285263 = sum of:
    0.026285263 = product of:
      0.052570526 = sum of:
        0.052570526 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052570526 = score(doc=4263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.32104865 = fieldWeight in 4263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data mining (DM) is part of a process by which information can be extracted from data or databases and used to inform decision making in a variety of contexts (Benoit, 2002; Michalski, Bratka & Kubat, 1997). DM includes a range of tools and methods for extractiog information; their use in the commercial sector for knowledge extraction and discovery has been one of the main driving forces in their development (Adriaans & Zantinge, 1996; Benoit, 2002). DM has been developed and applied in numerous areas. This review describes its use in analyzing health and medical information.

0.012215767 = product of:
  0.024431534 = sum of:
    0.024431534 = product of:
      0.04886307 = sum of:
        0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04886307 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012215767 = product of:
  0.024431534 = sum of:
    0.024431534 = product of:
      0.04886307 = sum of:
        0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04886307 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012215767 = product of:
  0.024431534 = sum of:
    0.024431534 = product of:
      0.04886307 = sum of:
        0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04886307 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010688796 = product of:
  0.021377591 = sum of:
    0.021377591 = product of:
      0.042755183 = sum of:
        0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042755183 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.010688796 = product of:
  0.021377591 = sum of:
    0.021377591 = product of:
      0.042755183 = sum of:
        0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042755183 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6084, 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=6084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009856974 = product of:
  0.019713948 = sum of:
    0.019713948 = product of:
      0.039427895 = sum of:
        0.039427895 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039427895 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2407865 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why devote an ARIST chapter to scholarly communication and bibliometrics, and why now? Bibliometrics already is a frequently covered ARIST topic, with chapters such as that by White and McCain (1989) on bibliometrics generally, White and McCain (1997) on visualization of literatures, Wilson and Hood (2001) on informetric laws, and Tabah (2001) on literature dynamics. Similarly, scholarly communication has been addressed in other ARIST chapters such as Bishop and Star (1996) on social informatics and digital libraries, Schamber (1994) on relevance and information behavior, and many earlier chapters on information needs and uses. More than a decade ago, the first author addressed the intersection of scholarly communication and bibliometrics with a journal special issue and an edited book (Borgman, 1990; Borgman & Paisley, 1989), and she recently examined interim developments (Borgman, 2000a, 2000c). This review covers the decade (1990-2000) since the comprehensive 1990 volume, citing earlier works only when necessary to explain the foundation for recent developments.

0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.008131588 = product of:
  0.016263176 = sum of:
    0.016263176 = product of:
      0.03252635 = sum of:
        0.03252635 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03252635 = score(doc=4285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.1986387 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The introduction and growth of the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web) have resulted in a profound change in the way individuals and organizations access information. In terms of volume, nature, and accessibility, the characteristics of electronic information are significantly different from those of even five or six years ago. Control of, and access to, this flood of information rely heavily an automated techniques for indexing and retrieval. According to Gudivada, Raghavan, Grosky, and Kasanagottu (1997, p. 58), "The ability to search and retrieve information from the Web efficiently and effectively is an enabling technology for realizing its full potential." Almost 93 percent of those surveyed consider the Web an "indispensable" Internet technology, second only to e-mail (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). Although there are other ways of locating information an the Web (browsing or following directory structures), 85 percent of users identify Web pages by means of a search engine (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). A more recent study conducted by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society confirms the finding that searching for information is second only to e-mail as an Internet activity (Nie & Ebring, 2000, online). In fact, Nie and Ebring conclude, "... the Internet today is a giant public library with a decidedly commercial tilt. The most widespread use of the Internet today is as an information search utility for products, travel, hobbies, and general information. Virtually all users interviewed responded that they engaged in one or more of these information gathering activities."
Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

0.008131588 = product of:
  0.016263176 = sum of:
    0.016263176 = product of:
      0.03252635 = sum of:
        0.03252635 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03252635 = score(doc=4286,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.1986387 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.

0.0076348544 = product of:
  0.015269709 = sum of:
    0.015269709 = product of:
      0.030539418 = sum of:
        0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030539418 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0065713157 = product of:
  0.013142631 = sum of:
    0.013142631 = product of:
      0.026285263 = sum of:
        0.026285263 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285263 = score(doc=4299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.16052432 = fieldWeight in 4299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emergence of digital libraries (DLs), at the interface of library and information science with computer and communication technologies, helped to expand significantly the literature in all of these areas during the late 1990s. The pace of development is reflected by the number of special issues of major journals in information science and computer science, and the increasing number of workshops and conferences an digital libraries. For example, starting in 1995, the Communications of the ACM has devoted three special issues to the topic (Fox, Akscyn, Furuta, & Leggett, 1995; Fox & Marchionini, 1998, 2001). The Journal of the American Society for Information Science devoted two issues to digital libraries (H. Chen, 2000; Fox & Lunin, 1993); Information Processing & Management and the Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation each had one special issue (Chen & Fox, 1996; Marchionini & Fox, 1999). The domain of digital libraries, though still evolving, has matured over the last decade, as demonstrated by coverage through D-Lib (http://www.dlib.org), the International Journal an Digital Libraries (http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00799), and two overview works (W Y Arms, 2000; Lesk, 1997; both of which have also served as textbooks). Sun Microsystems published a small book to guide those planning a digital library (Noerr, 2000), and IBM has been developing commercial products for digital libraries since 1994 (IBM, 2000). A number of Web sites have extensive sets of pointers to information an DLs (D-Lib Forum, 2001; Fox, 1998a; Habing, 1998; Hein, 2000; Schwartz, 2001a, 2001b). Further, the field has attracted the attention of diverse academics, research groups, and practitionersmany of whom have attended tutorials, workshops, or conferences, e.g., the Joint Conference an Digital Libraries, which is a sequel to a separate series run by ACM and IEEE-CS. Therefore, it is timely that ARIST publishes this first review focusing specifically an digital libraries. There has been no ARIST chapter to date directly dealing with the area of DLs, though some related domains have been covered-particularly: information retrieval, user interfaces (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998), social informatics of DLs (Bishop & Star, 1996), and scholarly communication (see Borgman and Furner's chapter in this volume). This chapter provides an overview of the diverse aspects and dimensions of DL research, practice, and literature, identifying trends and delineating research directions.