Search (126 results, page 7 of 7)

0.004829915 = product of:
  0.00965983 = sum of:
    0.00965983 = product of:
      0.01931966 = sum of:
        0.01931966 = weight(_text_:r in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01931966 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.004829915 = product of:
  0.00965983 = sum of:
    0.00965983 = product of:
      0.01931966 = sum of:
        0.01931966 = weight(_text_:r in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01931966 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

r

0.0046329633 = product of:
  0.009265927 = sum of:
    0.009265927 = product of:
      0.018531853 = sum of:
        0.018531853 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018531853 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = 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.

0.0041399268 = product of:
  0.0082798535 = sum of:
    0.0082798535 = product of:
      0.016559707 = sum of:
        0.016559707 = weight(_text_:r in 3716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016559707 = score(doc=3716,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 3716, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Neuroth, H., A. Oßwald, R. Scheffel, S. Strathmann u. K. Huth

0.0038608029 = product of:
  0.0077216057 = sum of:
    0.0077216057 = product of:
      0.015443211 = sum of:
        0.015443211 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015443211 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24.10.2008 14:19:22

0.003449939 = product of:
  0.006899878 = sum of:
    0.006899878 = product of:
      0.013799756 = sum of:
        0.013799756 = weight(_text_:r in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013799756 = score(doc=1875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.09143383 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Computer vision specialists said that despite the improvements, these software systems had made only limited progress toward the goal of digitally duplicating human vision and, even more elusive, understanding. "I don't know that I would say this is 'understanding' in the sense we want," said John R. Smith, a senior manager at I.B.M.'s T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y. "I think even the ability to generate language here is very limited." But the Google and Stanford teams said that they expect to see significant increases in accuracy as they improve their software and train these programs with larger sets of annotated images. A research group led by Tamara L. Berg, a computer scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is training a neural network with one million images annotated by humans. "You're trying to tell the story behind the image," she said. "A natural scene will be very complex, and you want to pick out the most important objects in the image.""