Search (136 results, page 7 of 7)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Kluge, A.; Singer, W.: ¬Das Gehirn braucht so viel Strom wie die Glühbirne (2012) 0.01 
    0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4167, 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=4167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 2.2018 18:10:21
  2. Menge-Sonnentag, R.: Google veröffentlicht einen Parser für natürliche Sprache (2016) 0.00 
    0.0049331645 = product of:
  0.019732658 = sum of:
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 2941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=2941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 2941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    SyntaxNet nutzt zur Entscheidung neuronale Netze und versucht die Abhängigkeiten richtig zuzuordnen. Damit "lernt" der Parser, dass es schwierig ist, Sonnenblumenkerne zum Schneiden einzusetzen, und sie somit wohl eher Bestandteil des Brots als ein Werkzeug sind. Die Analyse beschränkt sich jedoch auf den Satz selbst. Semantische Zusammenhänge berücksichtigt das Modell nicht. So lösen sich manche Mehrdeutigkeiten durch den Kontext auf: Wenn Alice im obigen Beispiel das Fernglas beim Verlassen des Hauses eingepackt hat, wird sie es vermutlich benutzen. Trefferquote Mensch vs. Maschine Laut dem Blog-Beitrag kommt Parsey McParseface auf eine Genauigkeit von gut 94 Prozent für Sätze aus dem Penn Treebank Project. Die menschliche Quote soll laut Linguisten bei 96 bis 97 Prozent liegen. Allerdings weist der Beitrag auch darauf hin, dass es sich bei den Testsätzen um wohlgeformte Texte handelt. Im Test mit Googles WebTreebank erreicht der Parser eine Genauigkeit von knapp 90 Prozent."
  3. Buttò, S.: RDA: analyses, considerations and activities by the Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian Libraries and Bibliographic Information (ICCU) (2016) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The report aims to analyze the applicability of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) within the Italian public libraries, and also in the archives and museums in order to contribute to the discussion at international level. The Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian libraries (ICCU) manages the online catalogue of the Italian libraries and the network of bibliographic services. ICCU has the institutional task of coordinating the cataloging and the documentation activities for the Italian libraries. On March 31 st 2014, the Institute signed the Agreement with the American Library Association,Publishing ALA, for the Italian translation rights of RDA, now available and published inRDAToolkit. The Italian translation has been carried out and realized by the Technical Working Group, made up of the main national and academic libraries, cultural Institutions and bibliographic agencies. The Group started working from the need of studying the new code in its textual detail, to better understand the principles, purposes, and applicability and finally its sustainability within the national context in relation to the area of the bibliographic control. At international level, starting from the publication of the Italian version of RDA and through the research carried out by ICCU and by the national Working Groups, the purpose is a more direct comparison with the experiences of the other European countries, also within EURIG international context, for an exchange of experiences aimed at strengthening the informational content of the data cataloging, with respect to history, cultural traditions and national identities of the different countries.
  4. Herzer, M.: Kurze Geschichte der Numa-Forschung (2016) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.29, 2016 [urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-100238171]
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Subject (of documents) (2016) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.
  6. Franke-Maier, M.: Computerlinguistik und Bibliotheken : Editorial (2016) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Vor 50 Jahren, im Februar 1966, wies Floyd M. Cammack auf den Zusammenhang von "Linguistics and Libraries" hin. Er ging dabei von dem Eintrag für "Linguistics" in den Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) von 1957 aus, der als Verweis "See Language and Languages; Philology; Philology, Comparative" enthielt. Acht Jahre später kamen unter dem Schlagwort "Language and Languages" Ergänzungen wie "language data processing", "automatic indexing", "machine translation" und "psycholinguistics" hinzu. Für Cammack zeigt sich hier ein Netz komplexer Wechselbeziehungen, die unter dem Begriff "Linguistics" zusammengefasst werden sollten. Dieses System habe wichtigen Einfluss auf alle, die mit dem Sammeln, Organisieren, Speichern und Wiederauffinden von Informationen befasst seien. (Cammack 1966:73). Hier liegt - im übertragenen Sinne - ein Heft vor Ihnen, in dem es um computerlinguistische Verfahren in Bibliotheken geht. Letztlich geht es um eine Versachlichung der Diskussion, um den Stellenwert der Inhaltserschliessung und die Rekalibrierung ihrer Wertschätzung in Zeiten von Mega-Indizes und Big Data. Der derzeitige Widerspruch zwischen dem Wunsch nach relevanter Treffermenge in Rechercheoberflächen vs. der Erfahrung des Relevanz-Rankings ist zu lösen. Explizit auch die Frage, wie oft wir von letzterem enttäuscht wurden und was zu tun ist, um das Verhältnis von recall und precision wieder in ein angebrachtes Gleichgewicht zu bringen. Unsere Nutzerinnen und Nutzer werden es uns danken.
  7. Liu, H.; Williams, K.: ¬The development of classes on women's studies in Library of Congress Classification (1970 - 2010) (2017) 0.00 
    0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3861)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Junger, U.; Schwens, U.: ¬Die inhaltliche Erschließung des schriftlichen kulturellen Erbes auf dem Weg in die Zukunft : Automatische Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek (2017) 0.00 
    0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3780, 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=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    19. 8.2017 9:24:22
  9. Bünte, O.: Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte bezweifelt Facebooks Datenschutzversprechen (2018) 0.00 
    0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4180, 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=4180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    23. 3.2018 13:41:22
  10. Seefried, E.: ¬Die Gestaltbarkeit der Zukunft und ihre Grenzen : zur Geschichte der Zukunftsforschung (2015) 0.00 
    0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4312, 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=4312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2018 13:47:33
  11. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.00 
    0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01
  12. Putkey, T.: Using SKOS to express faceted classification on the Semantic Web (2011) 0.00 
    0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library philosophy and practice, 2011
  13. Seer, V.: Von der Schattenbibliothek zum Forschungskorpus : ein Gespräch über Sci-Hub und die Folgen für die Wissenschaft (2017) 0.00 
    0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=5606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.32, 2017
  14. Rötzer, F.: KI-Programm besser als Menschen im Verständnis natürlicher Sprache (2018) 0.00 
    0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:32:44
  15. Jäger, L.: Von Big Data zu Big Brother (2018) 0.00 
    0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=5234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:33:49
  16. Graphic details : a scientific study of the importance of diagrams to science (2016) 0.00 
    0.0025465374 = product of:
  0.01018615 = sum of:
    0.01018615 = product of:
      0.0203723 = sum of:
        0.0203723 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0203723 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

Authors

Languages

  • e 82
  • d 50
  • i 2
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Themes