Search (757 results, page 1 of 38)

0.14898573 = product of:
  0.5959429 = sum of:
    0.5959429 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5959429 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.12415478 = product of:
  0.4966191 = sum of:
    0.4966191 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4966191 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.106065564 = product of:
  0.21213113 = sum of:
    0.16976728 = weight(_text_:assess in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16976728 = score(doc=3343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.4605288 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

User-generated content is one of the most interesting phenomena of current published media, as users are now able not only to consume, but also to produce content in a much faster and easier manner. However, such freedom also carries concerns about content quality. In this work, we propose an automatic framework to assess the quality of collaboratively generated content. Quality is addressed as a multidimensional concept, modeled as a combination of independent assessments, each regarding different quality dimensions. Accordingly, we adopt a machine-learning (ML)-based multiview approach to assess content quality. We perform a thorough analysis of our framework on two different domains: Questions and Answer Forums and Collaborative Encyclopedias. This allowed us to better understand when and how the proposed multiview approach is able to provide accurate quality assessments. Our main contributions are: (a) a general ML multiview framework that takes advantage of different views of quality indicators; (b) the improvement (up to 30%) in quality assessment over the best state-of-the-art baseline methods; (c) a thorough feature and view analysis regarding impact, informativeness, and correlation, based on two distinct domains.

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.09744447 = product of:
  0.19488893 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:35

0.09744447 = product of:
  0.19488893 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.09744447 = product of:
  0.19488893 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.08690834 = product of:
  0.34763336 = sum of:
    0.34763336 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.34763336 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.08485246 = product of:
  0.16970491 = sum of:
    0.13581383 = weight(_text_:assess in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13581383 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.36842304 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.033891086 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033891086 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:39:23

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2260)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=2260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2260, 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=2260)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

15.10.2015 19:22:55

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2934, 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=2934)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Tags generated by domain experts reaching a consensus under social influence reflect the core concepts of the tagged resource. Such tags can act as navigational cues that enable users to discover meaningful and relevant information in a Web 2.0 environment. This is particularly critical for nonexperts for understanding formal academic or scientific resources, also known as hard content. The goal of this study was to develop a novel one-bit comparison (OBC) metric and to assess in what circumstances a set of tags describing a hard-content resource is mature and representative. We compared OBC with the conventional Shannon entropy approach to determine performance when distinguishing tags generated by domain experts and nonexperts in the early and later stages under social influence. The results indicated that OBC can accurately distinguish mature tags generated by a strong expert consensus from other tags, and outperform Shannon entropy. The findings support tag-based learning, and provide insights and tools for the design of applications involving tags, such as tag recommendation and tag-based organization.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:13:22

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 3045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=3045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 3045, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3045)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=3045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3045, 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=3045)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Two dominant theoretical models for privacy-individual privacy preferences and context-dependent definitions of privacy-are often studied separately in information systems research. This paper unites these theories by examining how individual privacy preferences impact context-dependent privacy expectations. The paper theorizes that experience provides a bridge between individuals' general privacy attitudes and nuanced contextual factors. This leads to the hypothesis that, when making judgments about privacy expectations, individuals with less experience in a context rely more on individual preferences such as their generalized privacy beliefs, whereas individuals with more experience in a context are influenced by contextual factors and norms. To test this hypothesis, 1,925 American users of mobile applications made judgments about whether varied real-world scenarios involving data collection and use met their privacy expectations. Analysis of the data suggests that experience using mobile applications did moderate the effect of individual preferences and contextual factors on privacy judgments. Experience changed the equation respondents used to assess whether data collection and use scenarios met their privacy expectations. Discovering the bridge between 2 dominant theoretical models enables future privacy research to consider both personal and contextual variables by taking differences in experience into account.

Date

20. 7.2016 18:22:57

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.08120373 = product of:
  0.16240746 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=5218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 5218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5218)
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=5218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5218, 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=5218)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Existing methods for readability assessment usually construct inductive classification models to assess the readability of singular text documents based on extracted features, which have been demonstrated to be effective. However, they rarely make use of the interrelationship among documents on readability, which can help increase the accuracy of readability assessment. In this article, we adopt a graph-based classification method to model and utilize the relationship among documents using the coupled bag-of-words model. We propose a word coupling method to build the coupled bag-of-words model by estimating the correlation between words on reading difficulty. In addition, we propose a two-view graph propagation method to make use of both the coupled bag-of-words model and the linguistic features. Our method employs a graph merging operation to combine graphs built according to different views, and improves the label propagation by incorporating the ordinal relation among reading levels. Experiments were conducted on both English and Chinese data sets, and the results demonstrate both effectiveness and potential of the method.

Date

15. 4.2019 13:46:22

0.074492864 = product of:
  0.29797146 = sum of:
    0.29797146 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29797146 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.074492864 = product of:
  0.29797146 = sum of:
    0.29797146 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29797146 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.06496298 = product of:
  0.12992597 = sum of:
    0.09603488 = weight(_text_:assess in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09603488 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.26051444 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
    0.033891086 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033891086 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper is the final one in a series which has tried to give an overview of so-called transformational areas of digital library technology. The aim has been to assess how much real transformation these applications can bring about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a summary of some of the legal and ethical issues associated with web 2.0 applications in libraries, associated with a brief retrospective view of some relevant literature. Findings - Although web 2.0 innovations have had a massive impact on the larger World Wide Web, the practical impact on library service delivery has been limited to date. What probably can be termed transformational in the effect of web 2.0 developments on library and information work is their effect on some underlying principles of professional practice. Research limitations/implications - The legal and ethical challenges of incorporating web 2.0 platforms into mainstream institutional service delivery need to be subject to further research, so that the risks associated with these innovations are better understood at the strategic and policy-making level. Practical implications - This paper makes some recommendations about new principles of library and information practice which will help practitioners make better sense of these innovations in their overall information environment. Social implications - The paper puts in context some of the more problematic social impacts of web 2.0 innovations, without denying the undeniable positive contribution of social networking to the sphere of human interactivity. Originality/value - This paper raises some cautionary points about web 2.0 applications without adopting a precautionary approach of total prohibition. However, none of the suggestions or analysis in this piece should be considered to constitute legal advice. If such advice is required, the reader should consult appropriate legal professionals.

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04

0.06207739 = product of:
  0.24830955 = sum of:
    0.24830955 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24830955 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.06207739 = product of:
  0.24830955 = sum of:
    0.24830955 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24830955 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.06207739 = product of:
  0.24830955 = sum of:
    0.24830955 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24830955 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>