Search (101 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Tramullas, J.; Garrido-Picazo, P.; Sánchez-Casabón, A.I.: Use of Wikipedia categories on information retrieval research : a brief review (2020) 0.06 
    0.06305964 = product of:
  0.12611929 = sum of:
    0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050096344 = score(doc=5365,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
    0.044457585 = weight(_text_:use in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044457585 = score(doc=5365,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=5365,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Wikipedia categories, a classification scheme built for organizing and describing Wikpedia articles, are being applied in computer science research. This paper adopts a systematic literature review approach, in order to identify different approaches and uses of Wikipedia categories in information retrieval research. Several types of work are identified, depending on the intrinsic study of the categories structure, or its use as a tool for the processing and analysis of other documentary corpus different to Wikipedia. Information retrieval is identified as one of the major areas of use, in particular its application in the refinement and improvement of search expressions, and the construction of textual corpus. However, the set of available works shows that in many cases research approaches applied and results obtained can be integrated into a comprehensive and inclusive concept of information retrieval.
  2. Gladun, A.; Rogushina, J.: Development of domain thesaurus as a set of ontology concepts with use of semantic similarity and elements of combinatorial optimization (2021) 0.06 
    0.055267893 = product of:
  0.110535786 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042349376 = score(doc=572,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.031238858 = weight(_text_:of in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031238858 = score(doc=572,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.48376274 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.
  3. Jansen, B.; Browne, G.M.: Navigating information spaces : index / mind map / topic map? (2021) 0.03 
    0.031155093 = product of:
  0.08308025 = sum of:
    0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033397563 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=436,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the use of wiki technology to provide a navigation structure for a collection of newspaper clippings. We overview the architecture of the wiki, discuss the navigation structure and pose the question: is the navigation structure an index, and if so, what type, or is it just a linkage structure or topic map. Does such a distinction really matter? Are these definitions in reality function based?
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  4. Qi, Q.; Hessen, D.J.; Heijden, P.G.M. van der: Improving information retrieval through correspondenceanalysis instead of latent semantic analysis (2023) 0.03 
    0.030319953 = product of:
  0.08085321 = sum of:
    0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050096344 = score(doc=1045,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1045, 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=1045)
    0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024135707 = score(doc=1045,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=1045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The initial dimensions extracted by latent semantic analysis (LSA) of a document-term matrixhave been shown to mainly display marginal effects, which are irrelevant for informationretrieval. To improve the performance of LSA, usually the elements of the raw document-term matrix are weighted and the weighting exponent of singular values can be adjusted.An alternative information retrieval technique that ignores the marginal effects is correspon-dence analysis (CA). In this paper, the information retrieval performance of LSA and CA isempirically compared. Moreover, it is explored whether the two weightings also improve theperformance of CA. The results for four empirical datasets show that CA always performsbetter than LSA. Weighting the elements of the raw data matrix can improve CA; however,it is data dependent and the improvement is small. Adjusting the singular value weightingexponent often improves the performance of CA; however, the extent of the improvementdepends on the dataset and the number of dimensions. (PDF) Improving information retrieval through correspondence analysis instead of latent semantic analysis.
    Source
    Journal of intelligent information systems [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-023-00815-y]
  5. Advanced online media use (2023) 0.03 
    0.027355243 = product of:
  0.10942097 = sum of:
    0.09679857 = weight(_text_:use in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09679857 = score(doc=954,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.7655222 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Ten recommendations for the advanced use of online media. Mit Links auf historische und weiterführende Beiträge.
    Content
    "1. Use a range of different media 2. Access paywalled media content 3. Use an advertising and tracking blocker 4. Use alternatives to Google Search 5. Use alternatives to YouTube 6. Use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter 7. Caution with Wikipedia 8. Web browser, email, and internet access 9. Access books and scientific papers 10. Access deleted web content"
    Source
    https://swprs.org/advanced-online-media-use/
  6. Frey, J.; Streitmatter, D.; Götz, F.; Hellmann, S.; Arndt, N.: DBpedia Archivo (2020) 0.03 
    0.027017687 = product of:
  0.054035373 = sum of:
    0.014611433 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014611433 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
    0.014972764 = weight(_text_:use in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014972764 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.11841066 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=53,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=53,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    We are proud to announce DBpedia Archivo (https://archivo.dbpedia.org) an augmented ontology archive and interface to implement FAIRer ontologies. Each ontology is rated with 4 stars measuring basic FAIR features. We discovered 890 ontologies reaching on average 1.95 out of 4 stars. Many of them have no or unclear licenses and have issues w.r.t. retrieval and parsing.
    Content
    # Community action on individual ontologies We would like to call on all ontology maintainers and consumers to help us increase the average star rating of the web of ontologies by fixing and improving its ontologies. You can easily check an ontology at https://archivo.dbpedia.org/info. If you are an ontology maintainer just release a patched version - archivo will automatically pick it up 8 hours later. If you are a user of an ontology and want your consumed data to become FAIRer, please inform the ontology maintainer about the issues found with Archivo. The star rating is very basic and only requires fixing small things. However, theimpact on technical and legal usability can be immense.
    # Community action on all ontologies (quality, FAIRness, conformity) Archivo is extensible and allows contributions to give consumers a central place to encode their requirements. We envision fostering adherence to standards and strengthening incentives for publishers to build a better (FAIRer) web of ontologies. 1. SHACL (https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/, co-edited by DBpedia's CTO D. Kontokostas) enables easy testing of ontologies. Archivo offers free SHACL continuous integration testing for ontologies. Anyone can implement their SHACL tests and add them to the SHACL library on Github. We believe that there are many synergies, i.e. SHACL tests for your ontology are helpful for others as well. 2. We are looking for ontology experts to join DBpedia and discuss further validation (e.g. stars) to increase FAIRness and quality of ontologies. We are forming a steering committee and also a PC for the upcoming Vocarnival at SEMANTiCS 2021. Please message hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de <mailto:hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>if you would like to join. We would like to extend the Archivo platform with relevant visualisations, tests, editing aides, mapping management tools and quality checks.
    # How does Archivo work? Each week Archivo runs several discovery algorithms to scan for new ontologies. Once discovered Archivo checks them every 8 hours. When changes are detected, Archivo downloads and rates and archives the latest snapshot persistently on the DBpedia Databus. # Archivo's mission Archivo's mission is to improve FAIRness (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) of all available ontologies on the Semantic Web. Archivo is not a guideline, it is fully automated, machine-readable and enforces interoperability with its star rating. - Ontology developers can implement against Archivo until they reach more stars. The stars and tests are designed to guarantee the interoperability and fitness of the ontology. - Ontology users can better find, access and re-use ontologies. Snapshots are persisted in case the original is not reachable anymore adding a layer of reliability to the decentral web of ontologies.
  7. Machado, L.M.O.: Ontologies in knowledge organization (2021) 0.02 
    0.022976806 = product of:
  0.061271485 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
    0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024135707 = score(doc=198,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=198,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Within the knowledge organization systems (KOS) set, the term "ontology" is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typologies. Contributing to this situation is the indiscriminate association of the term "ontology", both as a specific type of KOS and as a process of categorization, due to the interdisciplinary use of the term with different meanings. We present a systematization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. Focusing the analysis on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, it was possible to notice two broad perspectives regarding ontologies as artifacts that coexist in the knowledge organization systems spectrum. We have ontologies viewed, on the one hand, as an evolution in terms of complexity of traditional conceptual systems, and on the other hand, as a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of the system.
  8. Broughton, V.: Faceted classification in support of diversity : the role of concepts and terms in representing religion (2020) 0.02 
    0.020804098 = product of:
  0.055477593 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=5992,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.
    Source
    ¬The Indexer: the international journal of indexing. 38(2020) no.3, S.247-270
  9. Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020) 0.02 
    0.020659206 = product of:
  0.055091217 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=5718,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
  10. Harari, Y.N.: ¬[Yuval-Noah-Harari-argues-that] AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation (2023) 0.02 
    0.02059525 = product of:
  0.082381 = sum of:
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=953,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
    0.06305697 = product of:
      0.12611394 = sum of:
        0.12611394 = weight(_text_:computers in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12611394 = score(doc=953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.58088124 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Storytelling computers will change the course of human history, says the historian and philosopher.
    Source
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/04/28/yuval-noah-harari-argues-that-ai-has-hacked-the-operating-system-of-human-civilisation?giftId=6982bba3-94bc-441d-9153-6d42468817ad
  11. Ogden, J.; Summers, E.; Walker, S.: Know(ing) Infrastructure : the wayback machine as object and instrument of digital research (2023) 0.02 
    0.020230006 = product of:
  0.05394668 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=1084,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1084,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    From documenting human rights abuses to studying online advertising, web archives are increasingly positioned as critical resources for a broad range of scholarly Internet research agendas. In this article, we reflect on the motivations and methodological challenges of investigating the world's largest web archive, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (IAWM). Using a mixed methods approach, we report on a pilot project centred around documenting the inner workings of 'Save Page Now' (SPN) - an Internet Archive tool that allows users to initiate the creation and storage of 'snapshots' of web resources. By improving our understanding of SPN and its role in shaping the IAWM, this work examines how the public tool is being used to 'save the Web' and highlights the challenges of operationalising a study of the dynamic sociotechnical processes supporting this knowledge infrastructure. Inspired by existing Science and Technology Studies (STS) approaches, the paper charts our development of methodological interventions to support an interdisciplinary investigation of SPN, including: ethnographic methods, 'experimental blackbox tactics', data tracing, modelling and documentary research. We discuss the opportunities and limitations of our methodology when interfacing with issues associated with temporality, scale and visibility, as well as critically engage with our own positionality in the research process (in terms of expertise and access). We conclude with reflections on the implications of digital STS approaches for 'knowing infrastructure', where the use of these infrastructures is unavoidably intertwined with our ability to study the situated and material arrangements of their creation.
    Source
    Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369660337_Knowing_Infrastructure_The_Wayback_Machine_as_object_and_instrument_of_digital_research]
  12. DeSilva, J.M.; Traniello, J.F.A.; Claxton, A.G.; Fannin, L.D.: When and why did human brains decrease in size? : a new change-point analysis and insights from brain evolution in ants (2021) 0.02 
    0.019937312 = product of:
  0.039874624 = sum of:
    0.012833798 = weight(_text_:use in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012833798 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.101494856 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.015337974 = weight(_text_:of in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015337974 = score(doc=405,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23752278 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.0033105796 = product of:
      0.006621159 = sum of:
        0.006621159 = weight(_text_:on in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006621159 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.072900996 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008392274 = product of:
      0.016784549 = sum of:
        0.016784549 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016784549 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, 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=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.
    Source
    Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]
  13. Almeida, P. de; Gnoli, C.: Fiction in a phenomenon-based classification (2021) 0.02 
    0.0189761 = product of:
  0.050602935 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 712, 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=712)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=712,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 712, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=712)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=712,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 712, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=712)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In traditional classification, fictional works are indexed only by their form, genre, and language, while their subject content is believed to be irrelevant. However, recent research suggests that this may not be the best approach. We tested indexing of a small sample of selected fictional works by Integrative Levels Classification (ILC2), a freely faceted system based on phenomena instead of disciplines and considered the structure of the resulting classmarks. Issues in the process of subject analysis, such as selection of relevant vs. non-relevant themes and citation order of relevant ones, are identified and discussed. Some phenomena that are covered in scholarly literature can also be identified as relevant themes in fictional literature and expressed in classmarks. This can allow for hybrid search and retrieval systems covering both fiction and nonfiction, which will result in better leveraging of the knowledge contained in fictional works.
  14. Pankowski, T.: Ontological databases with faceted queries (2022) 0.02 
    0.018193804 = product of:
  0.04851681 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=666,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=666,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The success of the use of ontology-based systems depends on efficient and user-friendly methods of formulating queries against the ontology. We propose a method to query a class of ontologies, called facet ontologies ( fac-ontologies ), using a faceted human-oriented approach. A fac-ontology has two important features: (a) a hierarchical view of it can be defined as a nested facet over this ontology and the view can be used as a faceted interface to create queries and to explore the ontology; (b) the ontology can be converted into an ontological database , the ABox of which is stored in a database, and the faceted queries are evaluated against this database. We show that the proposed faceted interface makes it possible to formulate queries that are semantically equivalent to $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{Fac}$$ SROIQ Fac , a limited version of the $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}$$ SROIQ description logic. The TBox of a fac-ontology is divided into a set of rules defining intensional predicates and a set of constraint rules to be satisfied by the database. We identify a class of so-called reflexive weak cycles in a set of constraint rules and propose a method to deal with them in the chase procedure. The considerations are illustrated with solutions implemented in the DAFO system ( data access based on faceted queries over ontologies ).
  15. Zhai, X.: ChatGPT user experience: : implications for education (2022) 0.02 
    0.017766995 = product of:
  0.047378656 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
    0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473608 = score(doc=849,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
    0.013515383 = product of:
      0.027030766 = sum of:
        0.027030766 = weight(_text_:on in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027030766 = score(doc=849,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    ChatGPT, a general-purpose conversation chatbot released on November 30, 2022, by OpenAI, is expected to impact every aspect of society. However, the potential impacts of this NLP tool on education remain unknown. Such impact can be enormous as the capacity of ChatGPT may drive changes to educational learning goals, learning activities, and assessment and evaluation practices. This study was conducted by piloting ChatGPT to write an academic paper, titled Artificial Intelligence for Education (see Appendix A). The piloting result suggests that ChatGPT is able to help researchers write a paper that is coherent, (partially) accurate, informative, and systematic. The writing is extremely efficient (2-3 hours) and involves very limited professional knowledge from the author. Drawing upon the user experience, I reflect on the potential impacts of ChatGPT, as well as similar AI tools, on education. The paper concludes by suggesting adjusting learning goals-students should be able to use AI tools to conduct subject-domain tasks and education should focus on improving students' creativity and critical thinking rather than general skills. To accomplish the learning goals, researchers should design AI-involved learning tasks to engage students in solving real-world problems. ChatGPT also raises concerns that students may outsource assessment tasks. This paper concludes that new formats of assessments are needed to focus on creativity and critical thinking that AI cannot substitute.
  16. Franke, T.; Zoubir, M.: Technology for the people? : humanity as a compass for the digital transformation (2020) 0.02 
    0.017721407 = product of:
  0.047257088 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=830,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    How do we define what technology is for humans? One perspective suggests that it is a tool enabling the use of valuable resources such as time, food, health and mobility. One could say that in its cultural history, humanity has developed a wide range of artefacts which enable the effective utilisation of these resources for the fulfilment of physiological, but also psychological, needs. This paper explores how this perspective may be used as an orientation for future technological innovation. Hence, the goal is to provide an accessible discussion of such a psychological perspective on technology development that could pave the way towards a truly human-centred digital transformation.
  17. Babcock, K.; Lee, S.; Rajakumar, J.; Wagner, A.: Providing access to digital collections (2020) 0.02 
    0.01756242 = product of:
  0.04683312 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=5855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5855)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5855,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5855, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5855)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5855,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5855, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The University of Toronto Libraries is currently reviewing technology to support its Collections U of T service. Collections U of T provides search and browse access to 375 digital collections (and over 203,000 digital objects) at the University of Toronto Libraries. Digital objects typically include special collections material from the university as well as faculty digital collections, all with unique metadata requirements. The service is currently supported by IIIF-enabled Islandora, with one Fedora back end and multiple Drupal sites per parent collection (see attached image). Like many institutions making use of Islandora, UTL is now confronted with Drupal 7 end of life and has begun to investigate a migration path forward. This article will summarise the Collections U of T functional requirements and lessons learned from our current technology stack. It will go on to outline our research to date for alternate solutions. The article will review both emerging micro-service solutions, as well as out-of-the-box platforms, to provide an overview of the digital collection technology landscape in 2019. Note that our research is focused on reviewing technology solutions for providing access to digital collections, as preservation services are offered through other services at the University of Toronto Libraries.
  18. Ding, J.: Can data die? : why one of the Internet's oldest images lives on wirhout its subjects's consent (2021) 0.02 
    0.017404847 = product of:
  0.046412922 = sum of:
    0.023914373 = weight(_text_:use in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023914373 = score(doc=423,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.18912451 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
    0.014222101 = weight(_text_:of in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014222101 = score(doc=423,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22024246 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
    0.0082764495 = product of:
      0.016552899 = sum of:
        0.016552899 = weight(_text_:on in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016552899 = score(doc=423,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1822525 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In 2021, sharing content is easier than ever. Our lingua franca is visual: memes, infographics, TikToks. Our references cross borders and platforms, shared and remixed a hundred different ways in minutes. Digital culture is collective by default and has us together all around the world. But as the internet reaches its "dirty 30s," what happens when pieces of digital culture that have been saved, screenshotted, and reposted for years need to retire? Let's dig into the story of one of these artifacts: The Lenna image. The Lenna image may be relatively unknown in pop culture today, but in the engineering world, it remains an icon. I first encountered the image in an undergrad class, then grad school, and then all over the sites and software I use every day as a tech worker like Github, OpenCV, Stack Overflow, and Quora. To understand where the image is today, you have to understand how it got here. So, I decided to scrape Google scholar, search, and reverse image search results to track down thousands of instances of the image across the internet (see more in the methods section).
    Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.
    In the 21st century, the image has remained a common sight in classrooms and on TV, including a feature on Silicon Valley in 2014. Pushback towards the use of the image also grew in the 2010s leading up to 2019, when the Losing Lena documentary was released. Forsén shares her side of the story and asks for her image to be retired: "I retired from modelling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let's commit to losing me." After the film's release, many of my female colleagues shared stories about their own encounters with the image throughout their careers. When one of the only women this well referenced, respected, and remembered in your field is known for a nude photo that was taken of her and is now used without her consent, it inevitably shapes the perception of the position of women in tech and the value of our contributions. The film called on the engineering community to stop their spread of the image and use alternatives instead. This led to efforts to remove the image from textbooks and production code and a slow, but noticeable decline in the image's use for research.
    But despite this progress, almost 2 years later, the use of Lenna continues. The image appears on the internet in 30+ different languages in the last decade, including 10+ languages in 2021. The image's spread across digital geographies has mirrored this geographical growth, moving from mostly .org domains before 1990 to over 100 different domains today, notably .com and .edu, along with others. Within the .edu world, the Lenna image continues to appear in homework questions, class slides and to be hosted on educational and research sites, ensuring that it is passed down to new generations of engineers. Whether it's due to institutional negligence or defiance, it seems that for now, the image is here to stay.
    Content
    "Having known Lenna for almost a decade, I have struggled to understand what the story of the image means for what tech culture is and what it is becoming. To me, the crux of the Lenna story is how little power we have over our data and how it is used and abused. This threat seems disproportionately higher for women who are often overrepresented in internet content, but underrepresented in internet company leadership and decision making. Given this reality, engineering and product decisions will continue to consciously (and unconsciously) exclude our needs and concerns. While social norms are changing towards non-consensual data collection and data exploitation, digital norms seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Advancements in machine learning algorithms and data storage capabilities are only making data misuse easier. Whether the outcome is revenge porn or targeted ads, surveillance or discriminatory AI, if we want a world where our data can retire when it's outlived its time, or when it's directly harming our lives, we must create the tools and policies that empower data subjects to have a say in what happens to their data. including allowing their data to die."
  19. Aizawa, A.; Kohlhase, M.: Mathematical information retrieval (2021) 0.02 
    0.017372584 = product of:
  0.069490336 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=667,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    We present an overview of the NTCIR Math Tasks organized during NTCIR-10, 11, and 12. These tasks are primarily dedicated to techniques for searching mathematical content with formula expressions. In this chapter, we first summarize the task design and introduce test collections generated in the tasks. We also describe the features and main challenges of mathematical information retrieval systems and discuss future perspectives in the field.
    Series
    ¬The Information retrieval series, vol 43
    Source
    Evaluating information retrieval and access tasks. Eds.: Sakai, T., Oard, D., Kando, N. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5554-1_12]
  20. Huurdeman, H.C.; Kamps, J.: Designing multistage search systems to support the information seeking process (2020) 0.02 
    0.016511794 = product of:
  0.044031452 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5882, 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=5882)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5882,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

Authors

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 40
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 80
  • p 9
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes