Search (429 results, page 22 of 22)

5.5076747E-4 = product of:
  0.008812279 = sum of:
    0.008812279 = weight(_text_:und in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008812279 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.

5.5076747E-4 = product of:
  0.008812279 = sum of:
    0.008812279 = weight(_text_:und in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008812279 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

5.5076747E-4 = product of:
  0.008812279 = sum of:
    0.008812279 = weight(_text_:und in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008812279 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Moritz Helmstaedter erforscht den Schaltplan des menschlichen Gehirns. Künftig, so die Vorhersage des Managing Directors am Max-Planck-Institut für Hirnforschung, lassen sich wirkliche Gehirn-Computer bauen. Wie geht es weiter mit Deep Learning? Welche Ansätze in der Entwicklung künstlicher Intelligenzen sind vielversprechend, welche Architekturen führen in eine Sackgasse? Moritz Helmstaedter spricht Ende November auf dem Innovators Summit AI in München darüber, welche Erkenntnisse aus der aktuellen Hirnforschung hilfreich sind. Im Gespräch mit Technology Review gibt er einen Einblick. "Frage: Wenn wir es tatsächlich schaffen, Hirn-Computer zu bauen: Kann es passieren, dass sie nicht besser sind als die menschlichen? Antwort: Das ist natürlich Spekulation. Aber es kann durchaus sein, dass wir mit künstlichen Gehirnen an die gleichen Grenzen stoßen wie die Natur. Ein Einzelnes von ihnen wäre dann tatsächlich nicht besser. Aber dafür kann man sehr viele zusammenschalten, also skalieren. Und ein Problem fällt ohnehin weg: Die künstlichen Hirne müssen in keinen Schädel passen."

4.5897288E-4 = product of:
  0.007343566 = sum of:
    0.007343566 = weight(_text_:und in 2876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007343566 = score(doc=2876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2876)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Die Videos des TIB / AV-Portals werden mit insgesamt 63.356 GND-Sachbegriffen aus Naturwissenschaft und Technik automatisch verschlagwortet. Neben den deutschsprachigen Videos verfügt das TIB / AV-Portal auch über zahlreiche englischsprachige Videos. Die GND enthält zu den in der TIB / AV-Portal-Wissensbasis verwendeten Sachbegriffen nur sehr wenige englische Bezeichner. Es fehlt demnach ein englisches Indexierungsvokabular, mit dem die englischsprachigen Videos automatisch verschlagwortet werden können. Die Lösung dieses Problems sieht wie folgt aus: Die englischen Bezeichner sollen über ein Mapping der GND-Sachbegriffe auf andere Datensätze gewonnen werden, die eine englische Übersetzung der Begriffe enthalten. Die verwendeten Mappingstrategien nutzen die DBpedia, LCSH, MACS-Ergebnisse sowie den WTI-Thesaurus. Am Ende haben 35.025 GND-Sachbegriffe (mindestens) einen englischen Bezeichner ermittelt bekommen. Diese englischen Bezeichner können für die automatische Verschlagwortung der englischsprachigen Videos unmittelbar herangezogen werden. 11.694 GND-Sachbegriffe konnten zwar nicht ins Englische "übersetzt", aber immerhin mit einem Oberbegriff assoziiert werden, der eine englische Übersetzung hat. Diese Assoziation dient der Erweiterung der Suchergebnisse.

4.5897288E-4 = product of:
  0.007343566 = sum of:
    0.007343566 = weight(_text_:und in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007343566 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

Vgl.: http://swse.deri.org/ und http://swse.org/.

4.5897288E-4 = product of:
  0.007343566 = sum of:
    0.007343566 = weight(_text_:und in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007343566 = score(doc=5997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

4.5830404E-4 = product of:
  0.0073328647 = sum of:
    0.0073328647 = product of:
      0.014665729 = sum of:
        0.014665729 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014665729 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.094764054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027061297 = 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)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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.

3.671783E-4 = product of:
  0.0058748526 = sum of:
    0.0058748526 = weight(_text_:und in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058748526 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059977766 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027061297 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

3.4372802E-4 = product of:
  0.0054996484 = sum of:
    0.0054996484 = product of:
      0.010999297 = sum of:
        0.010999297 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999297 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.094764054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027061297 = 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)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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.