Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × type_ss:"s"
  1. Metrics in research : for better or worse? (2016) 0.01
    0.012295068 = product of:
      0.06147534 = sum of:
        0.06147534 = weight(_text_:index in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06147534 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    If you are an academic researcher but did not earn (yet) your Nobel prize or your retirement, it is unlikely you never heard about research metrics. These metrics aim at quantifying various aspects of the research process, at the level of individual researchers (e.g. h-index, altmetrics), scientific journals (e.g. impact factors) or entire universities/ countries (e.g. rankings). Although such "measurements" have existed in a simple form for a long time, their widespread calculation was enabled by the advent of the digital era (large amount of data available worldwide in a computer-compatible format). And in this new era, what becomes technically possible will be done, and what is done and appears to simplify our lives will be used. As a result, a rapidly growing number of statistics-based numerical indices are nowadays fed into decisionmaking processes. This is true in nearly all aspects of society (politics, economy, education and private life), and in particular in research, where metrics play an increasingly important role in determining positions, funding, awards, research programs, career choices, reputations, etc.
    Content
    Inhalt: Metrics in Research - For better or worse? / Jozica Dolenc, Philippe Hünenberger Oliver Renn - A brief visual history of research metrics / Oliver Renn, Jozica Dolenc, Joachim Schnabl - Bibliometry: The wizard of O's / Philippe Hünenberger - The grip of bibliometrics - A student perspective / Matthias Tinzl - Honesty and transparency to taxpayers is the long-term fundament for stable university funding / Wendelin J. Stark - Beyond metrics: Managing the performance of your work / Charlie Rapple - Scientific profiling instead of bibliometrics: Key performance indicators of the future / Rafael Ball - More knowledge, less numbers / Carl Philipp Rosenau - Do we really need BIBLIO-metrics to evaluate individual researchers? / Rüdiger Mutz - Using research metrics responsibly and effectively as a researcher / Peter I. Darroch, Lisa H. Colledge - Metrics in research: More (valuable) questions than answers / Urs Hugentobler - Publication of research results: Use and abuse / Wilfred F. van Gunsteren - Wanted: Transparent algorithms, interpretation skills, common sense / Eva E. Wille - Impact factors, the h-index, and citation hype - Metrics in research from the point of view of a journal editor / Renato Zenobi - Rashomon or metrics in a publisher's world / Gabriella Karger - The impact factor and I: A love-hate relationship / Jean-Christophe Leroux - Personal experiences bringing altmetrics to the academic market / Ben McLeish - Fatally attracted by numbers? / Oliver Renn - On computable numbers / Gerd Folkers, Laura Folkers - ScienceMatters - Single observation science publishing and linking observations to create an internet of science / Lawrence Rajendran.
  2. Alexiev, V.: Implementing CIDOC CRM search based on fundamental relations and OWLIM rules (2012) 0.01
    0.010867408 = product of:
      0.054337036 = sum of:
        0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054337036 = score(doc=467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The CIDOC CRM provides an ontology for describing entities, properties and relationships appearing in cultural heritage (CH) documentation, history and archeology. CRM promotes shared understanding by providing an extensible semantic framework that any CH information can be mapped to. CRM data is usually represented in semantic web format (RDF) and comprises complex graphs of nodes and properties. An important question is how a user can search through such complex graphs, since the number of possible combinations is staggering. One approach "compresses" the semantic network by mapping many CRM entity classes to a few "Fundamental Concepts" (FC), and mapping whole networks of CRM properties to fewer "Fundamental Relations" (FR). These FC and FRs serve as a "search index" over the CRM semantic web and allow the user to use a simpler query vocabulary. We describe an implementation of CRM FR Search based on OWLIM Rules, done as part of the ResearchSpace (RS) project. We describe the technical details, problems and difficulties encountered, benefits and disadvantages of using OWLIM rules, and preliminary performance results. We provide implementation experience that can be valuable for further implementation, definition and maintenance of CRM FRs.
  3. Gehirn, Gedächtnis, neuronale Netze (1996) 0.01
    0.009770754 = product of:
      0.04885377 = sum of:
        0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04885377 = score(doc=4661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4661, 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=4661)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2000 18:45:51
  4. Open MIND (2015) 0.01
    0.00697911 = product of:
      0.03489555 = sum of:
        0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03489555 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    27. 1.2015 11:48:22

Languages