Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.03
    0.03128866 = product of:
      0.06257732 = sum of:
        0.06257732 = sum of:
          0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027226217 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
          0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0353511 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.
  2. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.02
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = product of:
          0.0707022 = sum of:
            0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0707022 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  3. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.02
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = product of:
          0.0707022 = sum of:
            0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0707022 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = 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)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  4. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.02
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = product of:
          0.0707022 = sum of:
            0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0707022 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, 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=3282)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  5. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.02
    0.016672583 = product of:
      0.033345167 = sum of:
        0.033345167 = product of:
          0.06669033 = sum of:
            0.06669033 = weight(_text_:systems in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06669033 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  6. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.01
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = product of:
          0.056561764 = sum of:
            0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056561764 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  7. Alves dos Santos, E.; Mucheroni, M.L.: VIAF and OpenCitations : cooperative work as a strategy for information organization in the linked data era (2018) 0.01
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = product of:
          0.056561764 = sum of:
            0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056561764 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 1.2019 19:13:22
  8. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.01
    0.012372886 = product of:
      0.024745772 = sum of:
        0.024745772 = product of:
          0.049491543 = sum of:
            0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049491543 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Pfister, E.; Wittwer, B.; Wolff, M.: Metadaten - Manuelle Datenpflege vs. Automatisieren : ein Praxisbericht zu Metadatenmanagement an der ETH-Bibliothek (2017) 0.01
    0.012372886 = product of:
      0.024745772 = sum of:
        0.024745772 = product of:
          0.049491543 = sum of:
            0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049491543 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5630, 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=5630)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.1, S.22-25
  10. Syn, S.Y.; Spring, M.B.: Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags (2013) 0.01
    0.011789299 = product of:
      0.023578597 = sum of:
        0.023578597 = product of:
          0.047157194 = sum of:
            0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047157194 = score(doc=745,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.
  11. Gursoy, A.; Wickett, K.; Feinberg, M.: Understanding tag functions in a moderated, user-generated metadata ecosystem (2018) 0.01
    0.011789299 = product of:
      0.023578597 = sum of:
        0.023578597 = product of:
          0.047157194 = sum of:
            0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047157194 = score(doc=3946,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate tag use in a metadata ecosystem that supports a fan work repository to identify functions of tags and explore the system as a co-constructed communicative context. Design/methodology/approach Using modified techniques from grounded theory (Charmaz, 2007), this paper integrates humanistic and social science methods to identify kinds of tag use in a rich setting. Findings Three primary roles of tags emerge out of detailed study of the metadata ecosystem: tags can identify elements in the fan work, tags can reflect on how those elements are used or adapted in the fan work, and finally, tags can express the fan author's sense of her role in the discursive context of the fan work repository. Attending to each of the tag roles shifts focus away from just what tags say to include how they say it. Practical implications Instead of building metadata systems designed solely for retrieval or description, this research suggests that it may be fruitful to build systems that recognize various metadata functions and allow for expressivity. This research also suggests that attending to metadata previously considered unusable in systems may reflect the participants' sense of the system and their role within it. Originality/value In addition to accommodating a wider range of tag functions, this research implies consideration of metadata ecosystems, where different kinds of tags do different things and work together to create a multifaceted artifact.
  12. Welhouse, Z.; Lee, J.H.; Bancroft, J.: "What am I fighting for?" : creating a controlled vocabulary for video game plot metadata (2015) 0.01
    0.011551105 = product of:
      0.02310221 = sum of:
        0.02310221 = product of:
          0.04620442 = sum of:
            0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04620442 = score(doc=2015,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A video game's plot is one of its defining features, and prior research confirms the importance of plot metadata to users through persona analysis, interviews, and surveys. However, existing organizational systems, including library catalogs, game-related websites, and traditional plot classification systems, do not adequately describe the plot information of video games, in other words, what the game is really about. We attempt to address the issue by creating a controlled vocabulary based on a domain analysis involving a review of relevant literature and existing data structures. The controlled vocabulary is constructed in a pair structure for maximizing flexibility and extensibility. Adopting this controlled vocabulary for describing plot information of games will allow for useful search and collocation of video games.
  13. Baker, T.: Dublin Core Application Profiles : current approaches (2010) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, 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=3737)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  14. DeZelar-Tiedman, C.: Exploring user-contributed metadata's potential to enhance access to literary works (2011) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  15. Wartburg, K. von; Sibille, C.; Aliverti, C.: Metadata collaboration between the Swiss National Library and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography (2019) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:22:49
  16. Tallerås, C.; Dahl, J.H.B.; Pharo, N.: User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe (2018) 0.01
    0.009625921 = product of:
      0.019251842 = sum of:
        0.019251842 = product of:
          0.038503684 = sum of:
            0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038503684 = score(doc=4247,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.
  17. Kopácsi, S.; Hudak, R.; Ganguly, R.: Implementation of a classification server to support metadata organization for long term preservation systems (2017) 0.01
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = product of:
          0.038116705 = sum of:
            0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 3915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038116705 = score(doc=3915,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3915, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3915)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  18. Holzhause, R.; Krömker, H.; Schnöll, M.: Vernetzung von audiovisuellen Inhalten und Metadaten : Metadatengestütztes System zur Generierung und Erschließung von Medienfragmenten (Teil 1) (2016) 0.01
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = product of:
          0.038116705 = sum of:
            0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 5636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038116705 = score(doc=5636,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5636, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5636)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Der folgende Artikel beschäftigt sich mit den Anforderungen und Aufgaben eines Systems zur vernetzten Datenverwaltung, welches zeitbezogene Verknüpfungen zwischen audiovisuellen Inhalten und Metadaten ermöglicht. Anhand der zusammenhängenden Relationen kann ein audiovisuelles Medium nicht nur als Ganzes effektiv beschrieben und erfasst werden, sondern auch dessen Fragmente und Kontexte. Auf Basis dieser Datenverarbeitung lassen sich vielfältige Schnittstellen und Anwendungen zur kontextbasierten Erschließung, Bearbeitung und Auslieferung von Dokumenten und Medien abbilden, welche insbesondere für Mediatheken und Systeme des Media-Asset-Managements im medialen Umfeld einen großen zusätzlichen Nutzen aufweisen, aber auch Aufgaben innerhalb wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken und Archivsystemen erfüllen können.
  19. Belém, F.M.; Almeida, J.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.: ¬A survey on tag recommendation methods : a review (2017) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:30:22
  20. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22