Search (739 results, page 2 of 37)

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 3555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3555)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 4797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4797)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article provides an interpretation of the structure of classification theory literature, from the late 19th Century to the present, by dividing it into four orders, and then describes the relationship between that and manuals for classification design.

0.014740471 = product of:
  0.10318329 = sum of:
    0.10318329 = sum of:
      0.06774294 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06774294 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.035440356 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035440356 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.014432226 = product of:
  0.10102558 = sum of:
    0.10102558 = sum of:
      0.058065377 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058065377 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.0429602 = weight(_text_:22 in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0429602 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 657, 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=657)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die nächste Krise kommt mit Sicherheit. Nur wissen wir nicht in welcher Gestalt und Intensität. Welche Mittel gibt es, um Krise abzumildern, sie nicht zu einer Katastrophe ausarten zu lassen? Für die Bewältigung dieser Problemlagen stehen zahlreiche Methoden und Techniken zur Verfügung. Wir machen es uns aber zu einfach, wenn wir glauben, dass die Anwendung der "richtigen" Methode und Technik schon zur Lösung führt. Patentrezepte gibt es nicht. Die Realität ist komplexer als das Simulakrum, das wir uns schaffen. Daraus resultieren einige grundlegende Fragestellungen: Was ist das charakteristische an einem Problem? Worin besteht der Unterschied zwischen einem Problem und einer Aufgabe? Lässt sich Komplexität nachhaltig managen? Welche Formen der Komplexitätsreduzierung gibt es? Wie können Information Professionals bei der Bewältigung mitwirken? Erst mit diesen Vorkenntnissen lassen sich Problemlagen für eine unbestimmte Zeit bewältigen.

Date

22. 3.2013 14:05:39

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.9-22

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=4612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The term "tagging" is widely used for the assigning of terms to information objects in user-driven websites, although a cursory examination of such websites suggests that the communicative functions undertaken by taggers are not always driven by concerns about inter-subjective informative communication. At the heart of the debate about social indexing are issues relating to meaning and interpretation. Even where the intention is to assign informative tags, there is an issue about the relationship between the modality of an information object and its subsequent interpretation in historical time. This paper tests a model of image modality using four test images, which are interpreted and tagged by a group of distance learner students at the Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University. The results are described, and the implications are discussed. Overall, this limited exercise suggests that the modality model might be of some use in categorizing images within an image IR system. The exercise also suggests that leaving annotation and tagging entirely to users could lead to information loss over time. Finally, the exercise suggests that developing a retrieval tool using genre and the intertextual nature of multimedia objects might lead to the construction of rich, knowledge based systems.

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=1211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=1854,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In scientometrics, citer behavior is traditionally investigated using one of two main approaches. According to the normative point of view, the behavior of scientists is regulated by norms that make the detection of citation patterns useful for the interpretation of bibliometric measures. According to the constructivist perspective, citer behavior is influenced by other factors linked to the social and/or psychological sphere that do not allow any statistical inferences that are useful for the purposes of interpretation. An intermediate position supports normative theories in describing citer behavior with respect to high citation frequencies and constructivist theories with respect to low citation counts. In this paper, this idea was tested in a case study of the Italian sociology community. Italian sociology is characterized by an unusual organization into three "political" or "ideological" camps, and belonging to one camp can be considered a potentially strong constructivist reason to cite. An all-author co-citation analysis was performed to map the structure of the Italian sociology community and look for evidence of three camps. We did not expect to find evidence of this configuration in the co-citation map. The map, in fact, included authors who obtained high citation counts that are supposedly produced by a normative-oriented behavior. The results confirmed this hypothesis and showed that the clusters seemed to be divided according to topic and not by camp. Relevant scientific works were cited by the members of the entire community regardless of their membership in any particular camp.

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=2317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose an appropriate symbolic representation, as well as its metaphorical interpretation, to illustrate the special role of information in the knowledge acquisition process. Design/methodology/approach Besides the literature review, this is a speculative study based on a symbolic and metaphorical point of view. Findings The proposed symbolic representation was derived from the conceptual designation of information "as a flow" and, accordingly, by the corresponding redrawing of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) pyramid. The knowledge acquisition process is symbolically represented by the growth of a "tree of knowledge" which is planted on a "data earth," filled with "information sap" and lit by the rays of the "sun of the mind," a new symbol of the concept of wisdom in the DIKW model. As indicated, a key concept of this metaphorical interpretation is the role of "information sap" which rises from the roots of the "tree of knowledge" to the top of the tree and it is recognized as an invisible link between "world of data" and "world of knowledge." This concept is also proposed as a new symbolic representation of the DIKW model. Originality/value On the basis of specific symbolic-metaphorical representation, this paper provides a relatively new concept of information which may help bridge observed gaps in the understanding of information in various scientific fields, as well as in its understanding as an objective or subjective phenomenon.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=4657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 4657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4657)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It is argued that to evaluate an information source (e.g., a Wikipedia article), it is necessary to relate the content of that source to an interpretation of the state of knowledge at the research front (which is typically developing dynamically). In the research literature, there is a controversy about the effect of screening programs for breast cancer. This controversy is used to compare the value of Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica and two Danish encyclopedias as information sources. It is argued that this method of examining information sources is preferable to other methods which have been suggested in the literature.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article addresses the question "what is information?" by comparing the meaning of the term "information" and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the "Shannon-Weaver model," Brookes' interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom model. It shows that the term "information" in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Psychologische Diagnostik befasst sich mit Modellen hypothetischer Konstrukte. Im Rahmen des hierarchischen Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit nach Costa und McCrae (1992; sowie McCrae & Costa 1987; McCrae & John 1992) wurde eine Möglichkeit der circumplexen Anordnung der übergeordneten Hauptdimensionen vorgeschlagen (Costa & McCrae 1998). Das vorgeschlagene Circumplexmodell beabsichtigt eine Kombination von den Hauptfaktoren, die im hierarchischen Modell als unabhängig gelten. Die Unabhängigkeir der Faktoren wird durch ihre Orthogonalität im Circumplexmodell aufrechterhalten. Die neue Anordnung der untersuchten Konstrukte ermöglicht praxisrelevante Interpretation von diagnostizierten Werten der Personen auf den Dimensionen Extraversion, Offenheit für Erfahrung, Verträglichkeit und Gewissenhaftigkeit.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 934, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=934)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Ziel des Beitrags ist die Konstruktion eines künstlichen Systems, dem die Eigenschaft "erkennen zu können" zuzuschreiben ist. Dazu ist es einleitend erforderlich, den Begriff "Erkennen" bei autopoietischen und selbstreferentiellen Systemen zu präzisieren. Er wird auf systemischer Ebene als äquivalent zur Selbstorganisation gedeutet, die auf der Ebene des externen Beobachters beobachtbar und interpretierbar ist. In Anlehnung an naturanaloge Verfahren wird eine Architektur für sich selbstorganisierende Systeme entwickelt, deren Umsetzung am konkreten Beispiel demonstriert wird. Dies verdeutlicht, wie der Prozess der Selbstorganisation "Erkennen" ermöglicht und dass die Interpretation durch den Menschen eine qualitative Dimension beinhaltet, die auf einer übergeordneten Ebene stattfindet.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Der Begriff Inhaltsanalyse wird je nach wissenschaftlicher Provenienz oder Bedeutungszusammenhang unterschiedlich definiert: Innerhalb der bibliothekarischen Praxis wird die Erfassung des Inhaltes eines vorliegenden Dokumentes für die Zwecke der Indexierung als Inhaltsanalyse bezeichnet, philologische Textinterpretationen oder sprachwissenschaftliche Textanalysen werden gelegentlich als Inhaltsanalysen etikettiert, ebenso die Interpretation von Interviewaussagen in der Psychologie und qualitativen Sozialforschung. Der vorliegende Beitrag bezieht sich explizit auf die sozialwissenschaftliche Methode der systematischen Inhaltsanalyse. Allerdings ist auch durch diese Eingrenzung noch keine hinreichende definitorische Klarheit geschaffen, da eine Unterscheidung in qualitative und quantitative Verfahren vorzunehmen ist.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In FRBR and FRAD, realization of a musical work through performance is unambiguously included as a type of expression when it involves music in the Western canon. There is room for interpretation, however, as to whether an improvisation in jazz or rock constitutes an expression, or a new work with each performance. Multiple expressions, particularly transcriptions, and related works suggest the potential usefulness of treating a jazz performance as a work. This article examines the question of boundaries between one work and another, and illustrates ways that the FRBR model might be applied to cataloging improvisations.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Over the past two decades or so, Multi-Word Expressions (MWEs; also called Multi-word Units) have been an increasingly important concern for Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing (NLP). The term MWE has been used to refer to various types of linguistic units and expressions, including idioms, noun compounds, phrasal verbs, light verbs and other habitual collocations. However, while there is no universally agreed definition for MWE as yet, most researchers use the term to refer to those frequently occurring phrasal units which are subject to certain level of semantic opaqueness, or non-compositionality. Non-compositional MWEs pose tough challenges for automatic analysis because their interpretation cannot be achieved by directly combining the semantics of their constituents, thereby causing the "pain in the neck of NLP".

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=3525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 3525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3525)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The article presents a conceptual framework for distinguishing different sorts of heterogeneous digital materials. The hypothesis is that a wide range of heterogeneous data resources can be characterized and classified due to their particular configurations of hypertext features such as scripts, links, interactive processes, and time scalings, and that the hypertext configuration is a major but not sole source of the messiness of big data. The notion of hypertext will be revalidated, placed at the center of the interpretation of networked digital media, and used in the analysis of the fast-growing amounts of heterogeneous digital collections, assemblages, and corpora. The introduction summarizes the wider background of a fast-changing data landscape.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The aims of this paper are twofold: to offer a short history of image retrieval, and secondly and relatedly, to critique the metanarrative of modernity emerging in the literature of knowledge organization and information retrieval. The paper re-views the emerging grand narrative in relation to knowledge or-ganization and information retrieval that sees them as specific aspects of modernity and technological efficiency. This grand narrative is particularly interested in technology even when it is contextualising technology. A more nuanced history emerges when the focus moves to the representation, organization, and retrieval of images. This literature foregrounds not only the tech-nology but also issues relating to definitions of the "subject" and issues relating to interpretation and meaning-making.