Search (92 results, page 5 of 5)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Reiner, U.: Automatische DDC-Klassifizierung bibliografischer Titeldatensätze der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie (2009) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=3284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3284, 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=3284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2010 14:41:24
  2. Bradford, R.B.: Relationship discovery in large text collections using Latent Semantic Indexing (2006) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1163, 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=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism, and Security, SIAM Data Mining Conference, Bethesda, MD, 20-22 April, 2006. [http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Link%20Analysis/15.pdf]
  3. Freyberg, L.: ¬Die Lesbarkeit der Welt : Rezension zu 'The Concept of Information in Library and Information Science. A Field in Search of Its Boundaries: 8 Short Comments Concerning Information'. In: Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 22 (2015), 1, 57-80. Kurzartikel von Luciano Floridi, Søren Brier, Torkild Thellefsen, Martin Thellefsen, Bent Sørensen, Birger Hjørland, Brenda Dervin, Ken Herold, Per Hasle und Michael Buckland (2016) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  5. Rötzer, F.: KI-Programm besser als Menschen im Verständnis natürlicher Sprache (2018) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:32:44
  6. Jäger, L.: Von Big Data zu Big Brother (2018) 0.01 
    0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=5234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:33:49
  7. Beagle, D.: Visualizing keyword distribution across multidisciplinary c-space (2003) 0.01 
    0.0066615148 = product of:
  0.0133230295 = sum of:
    0.0133230295 = product of:
      0.026646059 = sum of:
        0.026646059 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026646059 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.13063091 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."
  8. Bertolucci, K.: Happiness is taxonomy : four structures for Snoopy - libraries' method of categorizing and classification (2003) 0.01 
    0.0066615148 = product of:
  0.0133230295 = sum of:
    0.0133230295 = product of:
      0.026646059 = sum of:
        0.026646059 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026646059 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.13063091 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Dewey and the Library of Congress The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a hotbed of intellectual activity for library categorizers. First Melvil Dewey developed his decimal system. Then the Library of Congress (LC) adapted Charles Ammi Cutter's alphanumeric system for its collection. Dewey, the only librarian popularly known for librarianship, had a healthy ego and placed information science at the very beginning of his classifications. The librarians at LC followed Cutter and relegated their profession to the back of their own bus, in the Zs. These two systems became the primary classifications accepted by the library community. I was once chastised at an SLA meeting for daring to design my own systems, and library schools that mainly train people for public and academic institutions reinforce this idea. In addition, LC provides cataloging and call numbers for almost every book commercially published in the United States and quite a few international publications. This is a seductive strategy for libraries that have little money and little time. These two systems contain drawbacks for special libraries. Let's see how they treat Snoopy. I'll be using Dewey for this exercise. Dewey has an index, which facilitates classification analysis. In addition, LC is a larger system, and we have space considerations here. However, other than length, call number building, and self-esteem, there is not much difference in the two theories. Figure 2 shows selected Dewey classifications for Snoopy, beagles, dogs, and animals (Melvil Dewey. Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. 21st ed. Edited by Joan S. Mitchell, et al. Albany, NY: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 1996). The call numbers are removed to emphasize hierarchy rather than notation. There are 234 categories. Both Dewey and LC are designed to describe the whole of human knowledge. For historic reasons, they do this from the perspective of an educated white male in 19th century America. This perspective presents some problems if your specialty is Snoopy. In "Generalities," newspaper cartoon strips are filed away under "Miscellaneous information, advice, amusement." However, a collection of Charles Schulz cartoons would be shelved way over in "The Arts [right arrow] Drawing and decorative arts," thereby separating two almost equal subjects by a very wide distance. The generic vocabulary required to describe all of human knowledge is also problematic for specialists. In "The Arts [right arrow] Standard subdivisions of fine and decorative arts and iconography," there are five synonyms for miscellaneous before we get to a real subject. Then it's another six facets to get to the dogs.
  9. Foerster, H. von; Müller, A.; Müller, K.H.: Rück- und Vorschauen : Heinz von Foerster im Gespräch mit Albert Müller und Karl H. Müller (2001) 0.01 
    0.0052592484 = product of:
  0.010518497 = sum of:
    0.010518497 = product of:
      0.021036994 = sum of:
        0.021036994 = weight(_text_:22 in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021036994 = score(doc=5988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 5988, 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=5988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2006 17:22:54
  10. Lavoie, B.; Connaway, L.S.; Dempsey, L.: Anatomy of aggregate collections : the example of Google print for libraries (2005) 0.01 
    0.0052592484 = product of:
  0.010518497 = sum of:
    0.010518497 = product of:
      0.021036994 = sum of:
        0.021036994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021036994 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2011 14:08:22
  11. Graphic details : a scientific study of the importance of diagrams to science (2016) 0.01 
    0.0052592484 = product of:
  0.010518497 = sum of:
    0.010518497 = product of:
      0.021036994 = sum of:
        0.021036994 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021036994 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  12. DeSilva, J.M.; Traniello, J.F.A.; Claxton, A.G.; Fannin, L.D.: When and why did human brains decrease in size? : a new change-point analysis and insights from brain evolution in ants (2021) 0.01 
    0.0052592484 = product of:
  0.010518497 = sum of:
    0.010518497 = product of:
      0.021036994 = sum of:
        0.021036994 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021036994 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, 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=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 48
  • d 42
  • a 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Themes