Search (581 results, page 1 of 30)

0.08313196 = product of:
  0.110842615 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
    0.054458156 = weight(_text_:research in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054458156 = score(doc=1146,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
    0.03317285 = product of:
      0.0663457 = sum of:
        0.0663457 = weight(_text_:network in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0663457 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

I describe a set of automated archives for electronic communication of research information in many fields of physics, and some related and unrelated disciplines, starting from 1991. These archives now serve over 35.000 users worldwide from over 70 countries, and process more than 70.000 electronic transaction per day. In some fields of physics, they have already supplanted traditional research journals as conveyors of both topical and archival research information

Content

Enthält die Bemerkung: "The problems of indexing and categorization of information in principle lie within the purview of library and information science communities, but to date theirs has been a curiously low profile in the electronic realm, while various amateur brute-force indexing schemes are running dangerously amok. It would be remarkable if centuries of ostensibly relevant experience will find little applicability in the network context"

0.06977993 = product of:
  0.093039915 = sum of:
    0.020101845 = weight(_text_:science in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020101845 = score(doc=3035,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15122458 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.019253865 = weight(_text_:research in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019253865 = score(doc=3035,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1337336 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.053684205 = sum of:
      0.03317285 = weight(_text_:network in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03317285 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.14760989 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.020511357 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020511357 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
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.
Dr Howe and his colleagues do, however, believe that the study of diagrams can result in new insights. A figure showing new metabolic pathways in a cell, for example, may summarise hundreds of experiments. Since illustrations can convey important scientific concepts in this way, they think that browsing through related figures from different papers may help researchers come up with new theories. As Dr Howe puts it, "the unit of scientific currency is closer to the figure than to the paper." With this thought in mind, the team have created a website (viziometrics.org (http://viziometrics.org/) ) where the millions of images sorted by their program can be searched using key words. Their next plan is to extract the information from particular types of scientific figure, to create comprehensive "super" figures: a giant network of all the known chemical processes in a cell for example, or the best-available tree of life. At just one such superfigure per paper, though, the citation records of articles containing such all-embracing diagrams may very well undermine the correlation that prompted their creation in the first place. Call it the ultimate marriage of chart and science.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21700620-surprisingly-simple-test-check-research-papers-errors-come-again.

0.06550559 = product of:
  0.08734078 = sum of:
    0.015474406 = weight(_text_:science in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015474406 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
    0.04059071 = weight(_text_:research in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04059071 = score(doc=1,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2819352 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
    0.031275664 = product of:
      0.06255133 = sum of:
        0.06255133 = weight(_text_:network in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06255133 = score(doc=1,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2783359 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.

0.053214032 = product of:
  0.07095204 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.020511357 = product of:
      0.041022714 = sum of:
        0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041022714 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Anthropological inquiry suggests that all societies classify animals and plants in similar ways. Paradoxically, in the same cultures that have seen large advances in biological science, citizenry's practical knowledge of nature has dramatically diminished. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize organic nature (folkbiology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. We show that results on psychological studies of categorization and reasoning from "standard populations" fail to generalize to humanity at large. Usual populations (Euro-American college students) have impoverished experience with nature, which yields misleading results about knowledge acquisition and the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. We also show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including commons problems.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.051432785 = product of:
  0.10286557 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
    0.064179555 = weight(_text_:research in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064179555 = score(doc=1103,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents our exploration of computer science clustering algorithms as they relate to the Scorpion system. Scorpion is a research project at OCLC that explores the indexing and cataloging of electronic resources. For a more complete description of the Scorpion, please visit the Scorpion Web site at <http://purl.oclc.org/scorpion>

Source

http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/arr/1997/

0.051432785 = product of:
  0.10286557 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 1569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=1569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1569)
    0.064179555 = weight(_text_:research in 1569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064179555 = score(doc=1569,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 1569, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1569)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Scorpion is a research project at OCLC that builds tools for automatic subject assignment by combining library science and information retrieval techniques. A thesis of Scorpion is that the Dewey Decimal Classification (Dewey) can be used to perform automatic subject assignment for electronic items.

Source

http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/arr/1997/

0.051432785 = product of:
  0.10286557 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 2507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=2507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 2507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2507)
    0.064179555 = weight(_text_:research in 2507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064179555 = score(doc=2507,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 2507, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2507)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl. dazu auch: Coates, H.L.: Library and information science research literature is chiefly descriptive and relies heavily on survey and content analysis methods. In: Evidence based library and information practice. 10/2015) no.4, S.215-217.

0.05004604 = product of:
  0.10009208 = sum of:
    0.054710288 = weight(_text_:science in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054710288 = score(doc=3290,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

"In this essay, I offer several significant examples of research that deal with animals' and children's perception. These examples come from social science, cognitive thology, and several camps in cognitive science"

0.047740437 = product of:
  0.095480874 = sum of:
    0.054458156 = weight(_text_:research in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054458156 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
    0.041022714 = product of:
      0.08204543 = sum of:
        0.08204543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08204543 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.047294937 = product of:
  0.094589874 = sum of:
    0.03930179 = weight(_text_:research in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03930179 = score(doc=3106,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
    0.055288088 = product of:
      0.110576175 = sum of:
        0.110576175 = weight(_text_:network in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110576175 = score(doc=3106,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.492033 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

Content

Vgl.: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/paper1.pdf. Other workshop material incl. presentations are available on the website < https://at-web1.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2016/programme.html>.

0.047056727 = product of:
  0.094113454 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 5798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=5798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 5798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5798)
    0.067033246 = product of:
      0.13406649 = sum of:
        0.13406649 = weight(_text_:network in 5798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13406649 = score(doc=5798,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.59655833 = fieldWeight in 5798, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents the idea and our work of extracting and reassembling a genealogical network automatically from a collection of biographies. The network can be used as a tool for network analysis of historical persons. The data has been published as Linked Data and as an interactive online service as part of the in-use data service and semantic portal BiographySampo - Finnish Biographies on the Semantic Web.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.11762

0.046863765 = product of:
  0.09372753 = sum of:
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.048345733 = product of:
      0.09669147 = sum of:
        0.09669147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09669147 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.04685612 = product of:
  0.09371224 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=1190,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
    0.060886066 = weight(_text_:research in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060886066 = score(doc=1190,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is the central public funding organization for academic research in Germany. It is thus comparable to a research council or a national research foundation. According to its statutes, DFG's mandate is to serve science and the arts in all fields by supporting research projects carried out at universities and public research institutions in Germany, to promote cooperation between researchers, and to forge and support links between German academic science, industry and partners in foreign countries. In the fulfillment of its tasks, the DFG pays special attention to the education and support of young scientists and scholars. DFG's mandate and operations follow the principle of territoriality. This means that its funding activities are restricted, with very few exceptions, to individuals and institutions with permanent addresses in Germany. Fellowships are granted for work in other countries, but most fellowship programs are restricted to German citizens, with a few exceptions for permanent residents of Germany holding foreign passports.

0.046659857 = product of:
  0.093319714 = sum of:
    0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038297202 = score(doc=5929,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
    0.055022508 = weight(_text_:research in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055022508 = score(doc=5929,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.

0.04638115 = product of:
  0.0927623 = sum of:
    0.0473805 = weight(_text_:science in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473805 = score(doc=4429,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=4429,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Computer Science Ontology (CSO) is a large-scale ontology of research areas that was automatically generated using the Klink-2 algorithm on the Rexplore dataset, which consists of about 16 million publications, mainly in the field of Computer Science. The Klink-2 algorithm combines semantic technologies, machine learning, and knowledge from external sources to automatically generate a fully populated ontology of research areas. Some relationships were also revised manually by experts during the preparation of two ontology-assisted surveys in the field of Semantic Web and Software Architecture. The main root of CSO is Computer Science, however, the ontology includes also a few secondary roots, such as Linguistics, Geometry, Semantics, and so on. CSO presents two main advantages over manually crafted categorisations used in Computer Science (e.g., 2012 ACM Classification, Microsoft Academic Search Classification). First, it can characterise higher-level research areas by means of hundreds of sub-topics and related terms, which enables to map very specific terms to higher-level research areas. Secondly, it can be easily updated by running Klink-2 on a set of new publications. A more comprehensive discussion of the advantages of adopting an automatically generated ontology in the scholarly domain can be found in.

Object

Computer Science Ontology

0.04576735 = product of:
  0.0915347 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 2815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=2815,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2815, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2815)
    0.064179555 = weight(_text_:research in 2815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064179555 = score(doc=2815,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 2815, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2815)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the future, frontier research in many fields will increasingly require the collaboration of globally distributed groups of researchers needing access to distributed computing, data resources and support for remote access to expensive, multi-national specialized facilities such as telescopes and accelerators or specialist data archives. There is also a general belief that an important road to innovation will be provided by multi-disciplinary and collaborative research - from bio-informatics and earth systems science to social science and archaeology. There will also be an explosion in the amount of research data collected in the next decade - 100's of Terabytes will be common in many fields. These future research requirements constitute the 'eResearch' agenda. Powerful software services will be widely deployed on top of the academic research networks to form the necessary 'Cyberinfrastructure' to provide a collaborative research environment for the global academic community. The difficulties in combining data and information from distributed sources, the multi-disciplinary nature of research and collaboration, and the need to move to present researchers with tooling that enable them to express what they want to do rather than how to do it highlight the need for an ecosystem of Semantic Computing technologies. Such technologies will further facilitate information sharing and discovery, will enable reasoning over information, and will allow us to start thinking about knowledge and how it can be handled by computers. This talk will review the elements of this vision and explain the need for semantic-oriented computing by exploring eResearch projects that have successfully applied relevant technologies. It will also suggest that a software + service model with scientific services delivered from the cloud will become an increasingly accepted model for research.

0.045059398 = product of:
  0.090118796 = sum of:
    0.058029022 = weight(_text_:science in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058029022 = score(doc=1077,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4365477 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.032089777 = weight(_text_:research in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032089777 = score(doc=1077,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper offers a definition of the core of information science, which encompasses most research in the field. The definition provides a unique identity for information science and positions it in the disciplinary universe. Design/methodology/approach After motivating the objective, a definition of the core and an explanation of its key aspects are provided. The definition is related to other definitions of information science before controversial discourse aspects are briefly addressed: discipline vs. field, science vs. humanities, library vs. information science and application vs. theory. Interdisciplinarity as an often-assumed foundation of information science is challenged. Findings Information science is concerned with how information is manifested across space and time. Information is manifested to facilitate and support the representation, access, documentation and preservation of ideas, activities, or practices, and to enable different types of interactions. Research and professional practice encompass the infrastructures - institutions and technology -and phenomena and practices around manifested information across space and time as its core contribution to the scholarly landscape. Information science collaborates with other disciplines to work on complex information problems that need multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to address them. Originality/value The paper argues that new information problems may change the core of the field, but throughout its existence, the discipline has remained quite stable in its central focus, yet proved to be highly adaptive to the tremendous changes in the forms, practices, institutions and technologies around and for manifested information.

0.04484266 = product of:
  0.08968532 = sum of:
    0.02680246 = weight(_text_:science in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02680246 = score(doc=2508,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
    0.06288286 = weight(_text_:research in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06288286 = score(doc=2508,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Objective - To compare the research articles produced by library and information science (LIS) practitioners, LIS academics, and collaborations between practitioners and academics. Design - Content analysis. Setting - English-language LIS literature from 2008 through 2012. Subjects - Research articles published in 13 library and information science journals. Methods - Using a purposive sample of 769 articles from selected journals, the authors used content analysis to characterize the mix of authorship models, author status (practitioner, academic, or student), topic, research approach and methods, and data analysis techniques used by LIS practitioners and academics. Main Results - The authors screened 1,778 articles, 769 (43%) of which were determined to be research articles. Of these, 438 (57%) were written solely by practitioners, 110 (14%) collaboratively by practitioners and academics, 205 (27%) solely by academics, and 16 (2%) by others. The majority of the articles were descriptive (74%) and gathered quantitative data (69%). The range of topics was more varied; the most popular topics were libraries and librarianship (19%), library users/information seeking (13%), medical information/research (13%), and reference services (12%). Pearson's chi-squared tests detected significant differences in research and statistical approaches by authorship groups. Conclusion - Further examination of practitioner research is a worthwhile effort as is establishing new funding to support practitioner and academic collaborations. The use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the results, particularly to international and non-English LIS literature. Future studies could explore motivators for practitioner-academic collaborations as well as the skills necessary for successful collaboration. Additional support for practitioner research could include mentorship for early career librarians to facilitate more rapid maturation of collaborative research skills and increase the methodological quality of published research.

Content

A Review of: Aytac, S. & Slutsky, B. (2014). Published librarian research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and perspectives. Collaborative Librarianship, 6(4), 147-159. Vgl.: https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/25480.

0.044691153 = product of:
  0.0595882 = sum of:
    0.011605804 = weight(_text_:science in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011605804 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.08730954 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.019253865 = weight(_text_:research in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019253865 = score(doc=1195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1337336 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.028728535 = product of:
      0.05745707 = sum of:
        0.05745707 = weight(_text_:network in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05745707 = score(doc=1195,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.25566787 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

0.04434503 = product of:
  0.059126705 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
    0.017092798 = product of:
      0.034185596 = sum of:
        0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034185596 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a prototype middleware framework between different terminology resources in order to provide a subject cross-browsing service for library portal systems. Design/methodology/approach: Nine terminology experts were interviewed to collect appropriate knowledge to support the development of a theoretical framework for the research. Based on this, a simplified software-based prototype system was constructed incorporating the knowledge acquired. The prototype involved mappings between the computer science schedule of the Dewey Decimal Classification (which acted as a spine) and two controlled vocabularies UKAT and ACM Computing Classification. Subsequently, six further experts in the field were invited to evaluate the prototype system and provide feedback to improve the framework. Findings: The major findings showed that given the large variety of terminology resources distributed on the web, the proposed middleware service is essential to integrate technically and semantically the different terminology resources in order to facilitate subject cross-browsing. A set of recommendations are also made outlining the important approaches and features that support such a cross browsing middleware service.

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.