Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3366,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3366, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Documents in rich text corpora usually contain multiple facets of information. For example, an article about a specific disease often consists of different facets such as symptom, treatment, cause, diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention. Thus, documents may have different relations based on different facets. Powerful search tools have been developed to help users locate lists of individual documents that are most related to specific keywords. However, there is a lack of effective analysis tools that reveal the multifaceted relations of documents within or cross the document clusters. In this paper, we present FacetAtlas, a multifaceted visualization technique for visually analyzing rich text corpora. FacetAtlas combines search technology with advanced visual analytical tools to convey both global and local patterns simultaneously. We describe several unique aspects of FacetAtlas, including (1) node cliques and multifaceted edges, (2) an optimized density map, and (3) automated opacity pattern enhancement for highlighting visual patterns, (4) interactive context switch between facets. In addition, we demonstrate the power of FacetAtlas through a case study that targets patient education in the health care domain. Our evaluation shows the benefits of this work, especially in support of complex multifaceted data analysis.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1800,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4599,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4599, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aufgrund der fortgesetzten Publikationsflut stellt sich immer dringender die Frage, wie die Schwellen für die Titel- und Normdatenpflege gesenkt werden können - sowohl für die intellektuelle als auch die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Zu einer Verbesserung der Daten- und Arbeitsqualität in der Sacherschließung kann beigetragen werden a) durch eine flexible Visualisierung der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und anderer Wissensorganisationssysteme, so dass deren Graphstruktur intuitiv erfassbar wird, und b) durch eine investigative Analyse ihrer aktuellen Struktur und die Entwicklung angepasster automatisierter Methoden zur Ermittlung und Korrektur fehlerhafter Muster. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) prüft im Rahmen des GND-Entwicklungsprogramms 2017-2021, welche Bedingungen für eine fruchtbare community-getriebene Open-Source-Entwicklung entsprechender Werkzeuge gegeben sein müssen. Weiteres Potential steckt in einem langfristigen Übergang zu einer Darstellung von Titel- und Normdaten in Beschreibungssprachen im Sinne des Semantic Web (RDF; OWL, SKOS). So profitiert die GND von der Interoperabilität mit anderen kontrollierten Vokabularen und von einer erleichterten Interaktion mit anderen Fach-Communities und kann umgekehrt auch außerhalb des Bibliothekswesens zu einem noch attraktiveren Wissensorganisationssystem werden. Darüber hinaus bieten die Ansätze aus dem Semantic Web die Möglichkeit, stärker formalisierte, strukturierende Satellitenvokabulare rund um die GND zu entwickeln. Daraus ergeben sich nicht zuletzt auch neue Perspektiven für die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Es wäre lohnend, näher auszuloten, wie und inwieweit semantisch-logische Verfahren den bestehenden Methodenmix bereichern können.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4564,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For this second Special Issue of Infozine, we have invited students, teachers, researchers, and software developers to share their opinions about one or the other aspect of this broad topic: how to balance drilling (for depth) vs. surfing (for breadth) in scientific learning, teaching, research, and software design - and how the modern digital-liberal system affects our ability to strike this balance. This special issue is meant to provide a wide and unbiased spectrum of possible viewpoints on the topic, helping readers to define lucidly their own position and information use behavior.

Content

Editorial: Surfing versus Drilling for Knowledge in Science: When should you use your computer? When should you use your brain? Blaise Pascal: Les deux infinis - The two infinities / Philippe Hünenberger and Oliver Renn - "Surfing" vs. "drilling" in the modern scientific world / Antonio Loprieno - Of millimeter paper and machine learning / Philippe Hünenberger - From one to many, from breadth to depth - industrializing research / Janne Soetbeer - "Deep drilling" requires "surfing" / Gerd Folkers and Laura Folkers - Surfing vs. drilling in science: A delicate balance / Alzbeta Kubincová - Digital trends in academia - for the sake of critical thinking or comfort? / Leif-Thore Deck - I diagnose, therefore I am a Doctor? Will drilling computer software replace human doctors in the future? / Yi Zheng - Surfing versus drilling in fundamental research / Wilfred van Gunsteren - Using brain vs. brute force in computational studies of biological systems / Arieh Warshel - Laboratory literature boards in the digital age / Jeffrey Bode - Research strategies in computational chemistry / Sereina Riniker - Surfing on the hype waves or drilling deep for knowledge? A perspective from industry / Nadine Schneider and Nikolaus Stiefl - The use and purpose of articles and scientists / Philip Mark Lund - Can you look at papers like artwork? / Oliver Renn - Dynamite fishing in the data swamp / Frank Perabo 34 Streetlights, augmented intelligence, and information discovery / Jeffrey Saffer and Vicki Burnett - "Yes Dave. Happy to do that for you." Why AI, machine learning, and blockchain will lead to deeper "drilling" / Michiel Kolman and Sjors de Heuvel - Trends in scientific document search ( Stefan Geißler - Power tools for text mining / Jane Reed 42 Publishing and patenting: Navigating the differences to ensure search success / Paul Peters