Search (236 results, page 1 of 12)

0.08441417 = product of:
  0.12662125 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=3858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
    0.009357665 = product of:
      0.01871533 = sum of:
        0.01871533 = weight(_text_:of in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01871533 = score(doc=3858,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Metatheory is meta-analytic work that comes from sociology and its purpose is the analysis of theory. Metatheory is a common form of scholarship in knowledge organization (KO). This paper presents an analysis of five papers that are metatheoretical investigations in KO. The papers were published between 2008 and 2015 in the journal Knowledge Organization. The preliminary findings from this paper are that though the authors do metatheoretical work it is not made explicit by the majority of the authors. Of the four types of metatheoretical work, metatheorizing in order to better understand theory (Mu) is most popular. Further, the external/intellectual approach, which imports analytical lenses from other fields, was applied in four of the five papers. And, the use of metatheory as a method of analysis is closely related to these authors' concern about epistemological, theoretical and methodological issues in the KO domain. Metatheory, while not always explicitly acknowledged as a method, is a valuable tool to better understand the foundations, the development of research, and the influence from other domains on KO.

0.027677055 = product of:
  0.08303116 = sum of:
    0.08303116 = sum of:
      0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023673227 = score(doc=5865,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
      0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059357934 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, 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=5865)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a short survey of the literature on indexing and retrieval of mathematical knowledge, with pointers to 72 papers and tentative taxonomies of both retrieval problems and recurring techniques.

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.02437083 = product of:
  0.07311249 = sum of:
    0.07311249 = sum of:
      0.014351131 = weight(_text_:of in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014351131 = score(doc=3450,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
      0.05876136 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05876136 = score(doc=3450,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The design and architecture of MIaS (Math Indexer and Searcher), a system for mathematics retrieval is presented, and design decisions are discussed. We argue for an approach based on Presentation MathML using a similarity of math subformulae. The system was implemented as a math-aware search engine based on the state-ofthe-art system Apache Lucene. Scalability issues were checked against more than 400,000 arXiv documents with 158 million mathematical formulae. Almost three billion MathML subformulae were indexed using a Solr-compatible Lucene.

Content

Vgl.: DocEng2011, September 19-22, 2011, Mountain View, California, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0863-2/11/09

Date

22. 2.2017 13:00:42

0.024179911 = product of:
  0.07253973 = sum of:
    0.07253973 = sum of:
      0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02505339 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.023484759 = product of:
  0.07045428 = sum of:
    0.07045428 = sum of:
      0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020087399 = score(doc=1967,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.05036688 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05036688 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=3082,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3082, 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=3082)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a crowd-sourced classification of knowledge organization systems based on open knowledge base Wikidata. The focus is less on the current result in its rather preliminary form but on the environment and process of categorization in Wikidata and the extraction of KOS from the collaborative database. Benefits and disadvantages are summarized and discussed for application to knowledge organization of other subject areas with Wikidata.

Pages

S.15-22

Source

Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]

0.017670318 = product of:
  0.053010955 = sum of:
    0.053010955 = sum of:
      0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017396197 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.017670318 = product of:
  0.053010955 = sum of:
    0.053010955 = sum of:
      0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017396197 = score(doc=3449,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3449, 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=3449)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Two new methods for retrieving mathematical expressions using conventional keyword search and expression images are presented. An expression-level TF-IDF (term frequency-inverse document frequency) approach is used for keyword search, where queries and indexed expressions are represented by keywords taken from LATEX strings. TF-IDF is computed at the level of individual expressions rather than documents to increase the precision of matching. The second retrieval technique is a form of Content-Base Image Retrieval (CBIR). Expressions are segmented into connected components, and then components in the query expression and each expression in the collection are matched using contour and density features, aspect ratios, and relative positions. In an experiment using ten randomly sampled queries from a corpus of over 22,000 expressions, precision-at-k (k= 20) for the keyword-based approach was higher (keyword: µ= 84.0,s= 19.0, image-based:µ= 32.0,s= 30.7), but for a few of the queries better results were obtained using a combination of the two techniques.

Date

22. 2.2017 12:53:49

0.015483245 = product of:
  0.046449736 = sum of:
    0.046449736 = sum of:
      0.02270656 = weight(_text_:of in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02270656 = score(doc=3608,freq=46.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
              46.0 = termFreq=46.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Source

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/

0.015472822 = product of:
  0.046418466 = sum of:
    0.046418466 = sum of:
      0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016739499 = score(doc=4550,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.014725267 = product of:
  0.0441758 = sum of:
    0.0441758 = sum of:
      0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014496832 = score(doc=3200,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3200, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3200)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=3200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3200, 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=3200)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper builds on the findings of a workshop held at the 2015 International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPRES), entitled, "Using Open-Source Tools to Fulfill Digital Preservation Requirements" (OSS4PRES hereafter). This day-long workshop brought together participants from across the library and archives community, including practitioners proprietary vendors, and representatives from open-source projects. The resulting conversations were surprisingly revealing: while OSS' significance within the preservation landscape was made clear, participants noted that there are a number of roadblocks that discourage or altogether prevent its use in many organizations. Overcoming these challenges will be necessary to further widespread, sustainable OSS adoption within the digital preservation community. This article will mine the rich discussions that took place at OSS4PRES to (1) summarize the workshop's key themes and major points of debate, (2) provide a comprehensive analysis of the opportunities, gaps, and challenges that using OSS entails at a philosophical, institutional, and individual level, and (3) offer a tangible set of recommendations for future work designed to broaden community engagement and enhance the sustainability of open source initiatives, drawing on both participants' experience as well as additional research.

Date

28.10.2016 18:22:33

0.014304235 = product of:
  0.042912703 = sum of:
    0.042912703 = sum of:
      0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013233736 = score(doc=4553,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.014238909 = product of:
  0.042716727 = sum of:
    0.042716727 = sum of:
      0.0071019684 = weight(_text_:of in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0071019684 = score(doc=2248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 2248, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2248)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2248, 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=2248)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Das Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education wurde im Januar 2016 vom Vorstand der Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) beschlossen. Es beruht auf der Idee von "Threshold Concepts" und sieht Informationskompetenz in einem engen Zusammenhang mit Wissenschaft und Forschung. Dadurch legt es bei der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz eine starke Betonung auf das "Warum", nicht nur auf das "Was". Der Ansatz des Framework wird vielfach kontrovers diskutiert. Bietet er tatsächlich eine neue Sichtweise auf die Förderung von Informationskompetenz oder ist er überwiegend alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? Kann das Framework neue Impulse für die Aktivitäten an den Bibliotheken in Deutschland setzen oder beschreibt es etwas, was wir längst machen? Der Beitrag versucht, Anregungen zu geben, welche Konsequenzen das Framework für unsere Kurse haben kann und welche veränderten Lernziele mit ihm verbunden sein können. Dabei plädiert er für ein umfassendes Verständnis von Informationskompetenz, das sich nicht auf Einzelaspekte wie Recherchekompetenz beschränkt.

Source

o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 4(2017) Nr.4, S.22-29

0.013990799 = product of:
  0.041972395 = sum of:
    0.041972395 = product of:
      0.08394479 = sum of:
        0.08394479 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08394479 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.012682905 = product of:
  0.038048714 = sum of:
    0.038048714 = sum of:
      0.008369749 = weight(_text_:of in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008369749 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.12216854 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Das kennt der Sammler: Da fängt man an, sich für eine Sache zu interessieren und alles darüber zusammenzutragen, was man kriegen kann, und dann hat man sich verhoben, weil man die Sache ein wenig zu groß angegangen ist. So ist es zum Beispiel blöd, in der Wüste zu sitzen und sich zu überlegen, alle Kiefernnadeln weltweit zusammentragen zu wollen, weil das ja von dort aus gesehen nicht so viele sein können. Und dann beginnt man nach einiger Zeit diese Website über die Kiefernwälder weltweit zu finden und sich am Kopf zu kratzen. Also beschließt man nur noch "herausragende Kiefernnadeln" zu sammeln, was immer das sein mag. Aber auf jeden Fall hat man es satt, jeden Tag mehrere Tausend Säcke Bioabfall von schwitzenden Postboten vor die Tore gestellt zu bekommen. So ähnlich muss es der Library of Congress gehen, wenn sie im Dezember 2017 genau das beschließt. Also, nicht wirklich das Sammeln von Kiefernnadeln einzustellen. Vielmehr handelt es sich ja um die umfangreichste Bibliothek der Welt, die alle möglichen Inhalte in Büchern, auf Tonbändern und eben auch Tweets sammelt. Das ist ihr jetzt zu viel geworden. Kann man verstehen, kommen wir ja schon mit dem Lesen von Tweets eines kleinhändigen Präsidenten kaum noch nach, dann muss es da draußen ja auch noch eine ganze Menge anderes Zeugs geben. Die armen Bibliothekare in den dortigen Kellern weinen ja schon, wenn sie wieder tonnenweise kommentierte Retweets und diesen Mist auf den Tisch bekamen, alleine das Ausdrucken von bis zu 280 Zeichen und Bildern dauert ja ewig ... ganz zu schweigen vom Einsortieren.

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

Object

Library of Congress

0.012310005 = product of:
  0.036930013 = sum of:
    0.036930013 = sum of:
      0.019122634 = weight(_text_:of in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019122634 = score(doc=3035,freq=58.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27912235 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
              58.0 = termFreq=58.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.01780738 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01780738 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A PICTURE is said to be worth a thousand words. That metaphor might be expected to pertain a fortiori in the case of scientific papers, where a figure can brilliantly illuminate an idea that might otherwise be baffling. Papers with figures in them should thus be easier to grasp than those without. They should therefore reach larger audiences and, in turn, be more influential simply by virtue of being more widely read. But are they?

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
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.
Dr Howe and his colleagues do, however, believe that the study of diagrams can result in new insights. A figure showing new metabolic pathways in a cell, for example, may summarise hundreds of experiments. Since illustrations can convey important scientific concepts in this way, they think that browsing through related figures from different papers may help researchers come up with new theories. As Dr Howe puts it, "the unit of scientific currency is closer to the figure than to the paper." With this thought in mind, the team have created a website (viziometrics.org (http://viziometrics.org/) ) where the millions of images sorted by their program can be searched using key words. Their next plan is to extract the information from particular types of scientific figure, to create comprehensive "super" figures: a giant network of all the known chemical processes in a cell for example, or the best-available tree of life. At just one such superfigure per paper, though, the citation records of articles containing such all-embracing diagrams may very well undermine the correlation that prompted their creation in the first place. Call it the ultimate marriage of chart and science.

0.011443388 = product of:
  0.034330163 = sum of:
    0.034330163 = sum of:
      0.010586989 = weight(_text_:of in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010586989 = score(doc=3335,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15453234 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, 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=3335)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Es ist wieder an der Zeit den Begriff "Information" zu aktualisieren beziehungsweise einen Bericht zum Status Quo zu liefern. Information ist der zentrale Gegenstand der Informationswissenschaft und stellt einen der wichtigsten Forschungsgegenstände der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft dar. Erstaunlicherweise findet jedoch ein stetiger Diskurs, der mit der kritischen Auseinandersetzung und der damit verbundenen Aktualisierung von Konzepten in den Geisteswissensschaften vergleichbar ist, zumindest im deutschsprachigen Raum1 nicht konstant statt. Im Sinne einer theoretischen Grundlagenforschung und zur Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen begrifflichen Matrix wäre dies aber sicherlich wünschenswert. Bereits im letzten Jahr erschienen in dem von Søren Brier (Siehe "The foundation of LIS in information science and semiotics"2 sowie "Semiotics in Information Science. An Interview with Søren Brier on the application of semiotic theories and the epistemological problem of a transdisciplinary Information Science"3) herausgegebenen Journal "Cybernetics and Human Knowing" acht lesenswerte Stellungnahmen von namhaften Philosophen beziehungsweise Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaftlern zum Begriff der Information. Unglücklicherweise ist das Journal "Cybernetics & Human Knowing" in Deutschland schwer zugänglich, da es sich nicht um ein Open-Access-Journal handelt und lediglich von acht deutschen Bibliotheken abonniert wird.4 Aufgrund der schlechten Verfügbarkeit scheint es sinnvoll hier eine ausführliche Besprechung dieser acht Kurzartikel anzubieten.

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=308,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 308, 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=308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2015 18:22:47

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 1432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=1432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1432, 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=1432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2016 15:58:46

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22