Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0611409 = product of:
  0.1630424 = sum of:
    0.07865016 = weight(_text_:storage in 3119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07865016 = score(doc=3119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.42141256 = fieldWeight in 3119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3119)
    0.05937352 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05937352 = score(doc=3119,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.5730491 = fieldWeight in 3119, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3119)
    0.025018727 = weight(_text_:systems in 3119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025018727 = score(doc=3119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3119)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Finding software for reuse is a problem that programmers face. To reuse code that has been proven to work can increase any programmer's productivity, benefit corporate productivity, and also increase the stability of software programs. This paper shows that fuzzy retrieval has an improved retrieval performance over typical Boolean retrieval. Various methods of fuzzy information retrieval implementation and their use for software reuse will be examined. A deeper explanation of the fundamentals of designing a fuzzy information retrieval system for software reuse is presented. Future research options and necessary data storage systems are explored.

0.05223544 = product of:
  0.1392945 = sum of:
    0.067414425 = weight(_text_:storage in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067414425 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.36121076 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
    0.041552808 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041552808 = score(doc=839,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
    0.030327275 = weight(_text_:systems in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030327275 = score(doc=839,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Knowledge explosion in various fields during recent years has resulted in the creation of vast amounts of on-line scientific literature. Food Science &Technology (FST) is also an important subject domain where rapid developments are taking place due to diverse research and development activities. As a result, information storage and retrieval has become very complex and current information retrieval systems (IRs) are being challenged in terms of both adequate precision and response time. To overcome these limitations as well as to provide naturallanguage based effective retrieval, a suitable knowledge engineering framework needs to be applied to represent, share and discover information. Semantic web technologies provide mechanisms for creating knowledge bases, ontologies and rules for handling data that promise to improve the quality of information retrieval. Ontologies are the backbone of such knowledge systems. This paper presents a framework for semantic representation of a large repository of content in the domain of FST.

0.043647453 = product of:
  0.17458981 = sum of:
    0.12561937 = weight(_text_:storage in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12561937 = score(doc=1103,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.6730765 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
    0.048970453 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048970453 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.041113295 = product of:
  0.10963546 = sum of:
    0.067414425 = weight(_text_:storage in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067414425 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.36121076 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
    0.020776404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020776404 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
    0.021444622 = weight(_text_:systems in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021444622 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

In this chapter, the authors describe the key indexing components of today's web search engines. As the World Wide Web has grown, the systems and methods for indexing have changed significantly. The authors present the data structures used, the features extracted, the infrastructure needed, and the options available for designing a brand new search engine. Techniques are highlighted that improve relevance of results, discuss trade-offs to best utilize machine resources, and cover distributed processing concepts in this context. In particular, the authors delve into the topics of indexing phrases instead of terms, storage in memory vs. on disk, and data partitioning. Some thoughts on information organization for the newly emerging data-forms conclude the chapter.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.041113295 = product of:
  0.10963546 = sum of:
    0.067414425 = weight(_text_:storage in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067414425 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.36121076 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
    0.020776404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020776404 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
    0.021444622 = weight(_text_:systems in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021444622 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Helen Brownson was a federal government employee from 1942 to 1970. At a time when scientific data were becoming exceedingly hard to manage, Brownson was instrumental in coordinating national and international efforts for more efficient, cost-effective, and universal information exchange. Her most significant contributions to documentation/information science were during her years at the National Science Foundation's Office of Scientific Information. From 1951 to 1966, Brownson played a key role in identifying and subsequently distributing government funds toward projects that sought to resolve information-handling problems of the time: information access, preservation, storage, classification, and retrieval. She is credited for communicating the need for information systems and indexing mechanisms to have stricter criteria, standards, and evaluation methods; laying the foundation for present-day NSF-funded computational linguistics projects; and founding several pertinent documentation/information science publications including the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.

0.038302887 = product of:
  0.15321155 = sum of:
    0.11122813 = weight(_text_:storage in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11122813 = score(doc=1853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.59596735 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
    0.041983422 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041983422 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

0.03703691 = product of:
  0.09876509 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
    0.02527273 = weight(_text_:systems in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02527273 = score(doc=3596,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Recent, rapid changes in technology have resulted in a proliferation of choices for music storage and access. Portable, web-enabled music devices are widespread, and listeners now enjoy a plethora of options regarding formats, devices, and access methods. Yet in this mobile music environment, listeners' access and management strategies for music collections are poorly understood, because behaviors surrounding the organization and retrieval of music collections have received little formal study. Our current research seeks to enrich our knowledge of people's music listening and collecting behavior through a series of systematic user studies. In this paper we present our findings from interviews involving 20 adult and 20 teen users of commercial cloud music services. Our results contribute to theoretical understandings of users' music information behavior in a time of upheaval in music usage patterns, and more generally, the purposes and meanings users ascribe to personal media collections in cloud-based systems. The findings suggest improvements to the future design of cloud-based music services, as well as to any information systems and services designed for personal media collections, benefiting both commercial entities and listeners.

0.036950413 = product of:
  0.098534435 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.024485227 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024485227 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.01787052 = weight(_text_:systems in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01787052 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.

0.036950413 = product of:
  0.098534435 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
    0.024485227 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024485227 = score(doc=1309,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
    0.01787052 = weight(_text_:systems in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01787052 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.

0.036950413 = product of:
  0.098534435 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=2836,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
    0.024485227 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024485227 = score(doc=2836,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
    0.01787052 = weight(_text_:systems in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01787052 = score(doc=2836,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Classification is the process of assigning objects to pre-defined classes based on observations or characteristics of those objects, and there are many approaches to performing this task. The overall objective of this study is to demonstrate the use of two learning techniques to analyze the results of a manual classification system. Our sample consisted of 1,026 documents, from the ACM Computing Classification System, classified by their authors as belonging to one of the groups of the classification system: "H.3 Information Storage and Retrieval." A singular value decomposition of the documents' weighted term-frequency matrix was used to represent each document in a 50-dimensional vector space. The analysis of the representation using both supervised (decision tree) and unsupervised (clustering) techniques suggests that two pairs of the ACM classes are closely related to each other in the vector space. Class 1 (Content Analysis and Indexing) is closely related to Class 3 (Information Search and Retrieval), and Class 4 (Systems and Software) is closely related to Class 5 (Online Information Services). Further analysis was performed to test the diffusion of the words in the two classes using both cosine and Euclidean distance.

0.031211209 = product of:
  0.08322989 = sum of:
    0.044942953 = weight(_text_:storage in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044942953 = score(doc=3947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.24080718 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
    0.023990527 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023990527 = score(doc=3947,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
    0.014296415 = weight(_text_:systems in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014296415 = score(doc=3947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - Content-based image retrieval (CBIR) technologies offer many advantages over purely text-based image search. However, one of the drawbacks associated with CBIR is the increased computational cost arising from tasks such as image processing, feature extraction, image classification, and object detection and recognition. Consequently CBIR systems have suffered from a lack of scalability, which has greatly hampered their adoption for real-world public and commercial image search. At the same time, paradigms for large-scale heterogeneous distributed computing such as grid computing, cloud computing, and utility-based computing are gaining traction as a way of providing more scalable and efficient solutions to large-scale computing tasks. Design/methodology/approach - This paper presents an approach in which a large distributed processing grid has been used to apply a range of CBIR methods to a substantial number of images. By massively distributing the required computational task across thousands of grid nodes, very high through-put has been achieved at relatively low overheads. Findings - This has allowed one to analyse and index about 25 million high resolution images thus far, while using just two servers for storage and job submission. The CBIR system was developed by Imense Ltd and is based on automated analysis and recognition of image content using a semantic ontology. It features a range of image-processing and analysis modules, including image segmentation, region classification, scene analysis, object detection, and face recognition methods. Originality/value - In the case of content-based image analysis, the primary performance criterion is the overall through-put achieved by the system in terms of the number of images that can be processed over a given time frame, irrespective of the time taken to process any given image. As such, grid processing has great potential for massively parallel content-based image retrieval and other tasks with similar performance requirements.

0.024199175 = product of:
  0.0967967 = sum of:
    0.067414425 = weight(_text_:storage in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067414425 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.36121076 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
    0.029382274 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029382274 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

E-sciences are data-intensive sciences that make a large use of the Web to share, collect, and process data. In this context, primary scientific data is becoming a new challenging issue as data must be extensively described (1) to account for empiric conditions and results that allow interpretation and/or analyses and (2) to be understandable by computers used for data storage and information retrieval. With this respect, metadata is a focal point whatever it is considered from the point of view of the user to visualize and exploit data as well as this of the search tools to find and retrieve information. Numerous disciplines are concerned with the issues of describing complex observations and addressing pertinent knowledge. In this paper, similarities and differences in data description and exploration strategies among disciplines in e-sciences are examined.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.02016598 = product of:
  0.08066392 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=5559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
    0.024485227 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024485227 = score(doc=5559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Scrutinizing the ways in which early printed reference works were designed is a way of bringing typography and book history into the domain of library and information science. The core subject of this discipline is the concept of user-oriented organization of knowledge; it has a close connection to information-seeking behavior and retrieval. By studying the typographic arrangement of knowledge in early printed reference works, one can approach the history of the storage, organization, and retrieval of scientific information. The article discusses the typographic "architecture" of the dictionaries published by the Antwerp printer Christophe Plantin and, more specifically, the three dictionaries of the Dutch language compiled by Plantin's learned proofreader Cornelis Kiliaan (ca. 1530-1607). Kiliaan was one of the first authors to introduce etymology and comparative linguistics into his dictionaries. By analyzing the typographic macrostructures and microstructures of his works, it is possible to discover the lines along which they developed-in the words of Paul Valéry-into machines à savoir. The article also compares Plantin's dictionaries with the international benchmark for lexicographic publishing in the Renaissance world, viz. the translation dictionaries compiled and printed by the Parisian publisher Robert Estienne.

0.01837309 = product of:
  0.07349236 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

0.01837309 = product of:
  0.07349236 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=4845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=4845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper identifies and discusses features of the classification of mammals that are relevant to the bibliographic classification of the subject. The tendency of zoological classifications to change, the differing sizes of groups of species, the use zoologists make of groupings other than taxa, and the links in zoology between classification and nomenclature, are identified as key themes the bibliographic classificationist needs to be aware of. The impact of cladistics, a novel classificatory method and philosophy adopted by zoologists in the last few decades, is identified as the defining feature of the current, rather turbulent, state of zoological classification. However because zoologists still employ some non-cladistic classifications, because cladistic classifications are in some way unsuited to optimal information storage and retrieval, and because some of their consequences for zoological classification are as yet unknown, bibliographic classifications cannot be modelled entirely on them.

0.014698472 = product of:
  0.058793887 = sum of:
    0.044942953 = weight(_text_:storage in 1485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044942953 = score(doc=1485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.24080718 = fieldWeight in 1485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1485)
    0.013850937 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013850937 = score(doc=1485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1485)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Product family design is one of the prevailing approaches in realizing mass customization. With the increasing number of product offerings targeted at different market segments, the issue of information management in product family design, that is related to an efficient and effective storage, sharing and timely retrieval of design information, has become more complicated and challenging. Product family modelling schema reported in the literature generally stress the component aspects of a product family and its analysis, with a limited capability to model complex inter-relations between physical components and other required information in different semantic orientations, such as manufacturing, material and marketing wise. To tackle this problem, ontology-based representation has been identified as a promising solution to redesign product platforms especially in a semantically rich environment. However, ontology development in design engineering demands a great deal of time commitment and human effort to process complex information. When a large variety of products are available, particularly in the consumer market, a more efficient method for building a product family ontology with the incorporation of multi-faceted semantic information is therefore highly desirable. In this study, we propose a methodology for building a semantically annotated multi-faceted ontology for product family modelling that is able to automatically suggest semantically-related annotations based on the design and manufacturing repository. The six steps of building such ontology: formation of product family taxonomy; extraction of entities; faceted unit generation and concept identification; facet modelling and semantic annotation; formation of a semantically annotated multi-faceted product family ontology (MFPFO); and ontology validation and evaluation are discussed in detail. Using a family of laptop computers as an illustrative example, we demonstrate how our methodology can be deployed step by step to create a semantically annotated MFPFO. Finally, we briefly discuss future research issues as well as interesting applications that can be further pursued based on the MFPFO developed.