Search (266 results, page 14 of 14)

0.005265457 = product of:
  0.010530914 = sum of:
    0.010530914 = product of:
      0.021061828 = sum of:
        0.021061828 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021061828 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = 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.

0.005265457 = product of:
  0.010530914 = sum of:
    0.010530914 = product of:
      0.021061828 = sum of:
        0.021061828 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021061828 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = 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(1/2)

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.0052429857 = product of:
  0.010485971 = sum of:
    0.010485971 = product of:
      0.020971943 = sum of:
        0.020971943 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971943 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.105730906 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.0052429857 = product of:
  0.010485971 = sum of:
    0.010485971 = product of:
      0.020971943 = sum of:
        0.020971943 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971943 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.105730906 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.

0.0052429857 = product of:
  0.010485971 = sum of:
    0.010485971 = product of:
      0.020971943 = sum of:
        0.020971943 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971943 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.105730906 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>

0.004387881 = product of:
  0.008775762 = sum of:
    0.008775762 = product of:
      0.017551525 = sum of:
        0.017551525 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017551525 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = 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