Search (1008 results, page 1 of 51)

0.11814874 = product of:
  0.23629747 = sum of:
    0.23629747 = sum of:
      0.1963621 = weight(_text_:b.a in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1963621 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38146657 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.5147557 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
      0.039935384 = weight(_text_:22 in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039935384 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4652, 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=4652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21.12.2018 18:22:12

Editor

Bristow, B.A. u.a.

0.05851886 = product of:
  0.11703772 = sum of:
    0.11703772 = product of:
      0.46815088 = sum of:
        0.46815088 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.46815088 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41649097 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04912602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.057853736 = product of:
  0.11570747 = sum of:
    0.11570747 = product of:
      0.23141494 = sum of:
        0.23141494 = weight(_text_:b.a in 1987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23141494 = score(doc=1987,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.38146657 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04912602 = queryNorm
            0.6066454 = fieldWeight in 1987, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1987)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The general purpose of this study is to assess the amount of catalogers' familiarity with Resource Description and Access (RDA) and their readiness for acceptance of these rules and the effect of training on this issue. The methodology of the presented research is a survey study using a descriptive-analytic approach. In this research, the familiarity of 49 catalogers, working for the Cataloging In Publication (CIP) department at the National Library and Archive of Iran with RDA was monitored before and after a training session through a questionnaire. It was specifically prepared for measuring catalogers' familiarity with, and acceptance of, RDA and also highlighting the self-identified and actual levels of this familiarity and acceptance. The results show that before training, catalogers' self-identified familiarity with RDA was higher than the average level. But after the training session, both self-identified and actual familiarity raised dramatically. Furthermore, the significant difference between the research population's features and self-identified, actual familiarity and the rules' acceptance rate among catalogers was examined. In this study, it was confirmed that there is a significant difference between self-stated and actual familiarity of catalogers regarding RDA. According to the results, M.A. catalogers have a self-identified familiarity higher than B.A. catalogers. It was also confirmed that the actual familiarity of catalogers with an M.A. degree before training is higher than catalogers holding a B.A.

0.057272278 = product of:
  0.114544556 = sum of:
    0.114544556 = product of:
      0.22908911 = sum of:
        0.22908911 = weight(_text_:b.a in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22908911 = score(doc=827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38146657 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04912602 = queryNorm
            0.6005483 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.056521602 = sum of:
  0.03988186 = product of:
    0.15952744 = sum of:
      0.15952744 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15952744 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016639745 = product of:
    0.03327949 = sum of:
      0.03327949 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03327949 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.052685525 = sum of:
  0.01974051 = product of:
    0.07896204 = sum of:
      0.07896204 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07896204 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.032945015 = product of:
    0.06589003 = sum of:
      0.06589003 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06589003 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses and illustrates through examples how meaningful or deep learning can be supported through well-structured presentation of material, through giving learners schemas they can use to organize knowledge in their minds, and through helping learners to understand knowledge organization principles they can use to construct their own schemas. It is a call to all authors, educators and information designers to pay attention to meaningful presentation that expresses the internal structure of the domain and facilitates the learner's assimilation of concepts and their relationships.

Pages

S.22-32

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0521677 = sum of:
  0.023929114 = product of:
    0.095716454 = sum of:
      0.095716454 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.095716454 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028238583 = product of:
    0.056477167 = sum of:
      0.056477167 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056477167 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.05121294 = sum of:
  0.0279173 = product of:
    0.1116692 = sum of:
      0.1116692 = weight(_text_:authors in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1116692 = score(doc=2600,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023295641 = product of:
    0.046591282 = sum of:
      0.046591282 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046591282 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05117844 = sum of:
  0.034538697 = product of:
    0.13815479 = sum of:
      0.13815479 = weight(_text_:authors in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13815479 = score(doc=823,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016639745 = product of:
    0.03327949 = sum of:
      0.03327949 = weight(_text_:22 in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03327949 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 823, 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=823)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aiming at contributing to the epistemological characterization of the area of knowledge organization, our goal is to analyze the KO journal, since its creation in 1993, as a knowledge domain, from a nuclear community of the most productive and greater impact authors, analyzing the dialogue among citing authors and cited ones, and also the co-citations established by the citing authors. We worked with a corpus of 310 articles published between 1993 and 2011 produced by a total of 360 authors. The relatively more productive authors, a group geographically concentrated in Europe (37%), North America (44%) and Asia (19%), is clearly explained by the historical European origin of the ISKO and by an increasing North American presence along the years. Of the 33 most cited authors, 22 were co-cited in at least 6 works, which suggests that they are the theoretical referential nucleus of the area, in the studied journal. Finally, we observe that the area reveals theme cohesion and coherence in its production, enabling us to clearly visualize its theoretical referential nucleus and to confirm the role performed by the KO magazine as a catalyzing agent of international theoretical construction in the area.

0.04927475 = sum of:
  0.02930706 = product of:
    0.11722824 = sum of:
      0.11722824 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11722824 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019967692 = product of:
    0.039935384 = sum of:
      0.039935384 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039935384 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.04927475 = sum of:
  0.02930706 = product of:
    0.11722824 = sum of:
      0.11722824 = weight(_text_:authors in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11722824 = score(doc=2925,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2925, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2925)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019967692 = product of:
    0.039935384 = sum of:
      0.039935384 = weight(_text_:22 in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039935384 = score(doc=2925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2925, 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=2925)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we use a stated choice experiment to study researcher preferences in the information sciences and to investigate the relative importance of different journal characteristics in convincing potential authors to submit to a particular journal. The analysis distinguishes high quality from standard quality articles and focuses on the question whether communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates leads to other submission decisions. Our results show that a positive framing effect might be present when authors decide on submitting a high quality article. No evidence of a framing effect is found when authors consider a standard quality article. From a journal marketing perspective, this is important information for editors. Communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates might help to convince researchers to submit to their journal.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:02:22

0.04876572 = product of:
  0.09753144 = sum of:
    0.09753144 = product of:
      0.39012575 = sum of:
        0.39012575 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39012575 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41649097 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04912602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.04795895 = sum of:
  0.007050183 = product of:
    0.028200733 = sum of:
      0.028200733 = weight(_text_:authors in 986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028200733 = score(doc=986,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.12592064 = fieldWeight in 986, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=986)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04090877 = product of:
    0.08181754 = sum of:
      0.08181754 = weight(_text_:b.a in 986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08181754 = score(doc=986,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38146657 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.21448153 = fieldWeight in 986, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.7650614 = idf(docFreq=50, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=986)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: KEYNOTE ADDRESS Richard P. Smiraglia. Universes, Dimensions, Domains, Intensions and Extensions: Knowledge Organization for the 21st Century DOMAIN OF KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Birger Hjorland. Is Knowledge Organization = Information Organization? - H.Peter Ohly. Mission, Programs and Challenges of Knowledge Organization - Rick Szostak. The Basic Concepts Classification - José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Ely Tannuri de Oliveira and Maria Cláudia Cabrini Gracio. Theoretical Referents in Knowledge Organization: A Domain Analysis of Knowledge Organization Journal - José Augusto Chaves Guimarães and Joseph T. Tennis. Constant Pioneers: The Citation Frontiers of Indexing Theory in the ISKO International Proceedings- Aline Elis Arboit, Maria Cláudia Cabrini Gracio, Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira and Leilah Santiago Bufrem. Relationship Between Authors and Main Subject Categories in the Knowledge Organization Domain: A Bibliometric Approach
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES Almila Akdag Salah, Cheng Gao, Krzysztof Suchecki, Andrea Scharnhorst, and Richard P. Smiraglia. The Evolution of Classification Systems: Ontogeny of the UDC - Joseph T. Tennis. Facets and Fugit Tempus: Considering Time.s Effect on Faceted Classification Schemes - B.A. Sharada. Ranganathan's Colon Classification: Kannada-English Version .dwibindu vargiikaraNa. - KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION FOR THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT Carolyn Watters and Naureen Nizam. Knowledge Organization on the Web: The Emergent Role of Social Classification - M. Cristina Pattuelli and Sara Rubinow. Charting DBpedia: Towards a Cartography of a Major Linked Dataset - Christopher S.G. Khoo. Dong Zhang, Mi Wang and Xin Jie Yun. Subject Organization in Three Types of Information Resources: An Exploratory Study - Kavi Mahesh and Pallavi Karanth. A Novel Knowledge Organization Scheme for the Web: Superlinks with Semantic Roles - Gercina Angela Borem de Oliveira Lima. Conceptual Modeling of Hypertexts: Methodological Proposal for the Management of Semantic Content in Digital Libraries - Evelyn Orrico, Vera Dodebei and Miriam Gontijo. The Precision of Metaphor for Information Retrieval

0.047954705 = sum of:
  0.024422552 = product of:
    0.09769021 = sum of:
      0.09769021 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09769021 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023532152 = product of:
    0.047064304 = sum of:
      0.047064304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047064304 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.044840477 = sum of:
  0.028200733 = product of:
    0.11280293 = sum of:
      0.11280293 = weight(_text_:authors in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11280293 = score(doc=5288,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016639745 = product of:
    0.03327949 = sum of:
      0.03327949 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03327949 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform. Findings Google's top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists. Research limitations/implications The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries. Originality/value The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.043896805 = sum of:
  0.023929114 = product of:
    0.095716454 = sum of:
      0.095716454 = weight(_text_:authors in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.095716454 = score(doc=3697,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019967692 = product of:
    0.039935384 = sum of:
      0.039935384 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039935384 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In order to enhance the use of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) numbers in information retrieval, the authors have represented classification with multilingual thesaurus descriptors and implemented this solution in an automated way. The authors illustrate a solution implemented in a BiblioPhil library system. The standard formats used are UNIMARC for subject authority records (i.e. the UDC-based multilingual thesaurus) and MARC XML support for data transfer. The multilingual thesaurus was built according to existing standards, the constituent parts of the classification notations being used as the basis for search terms in the multilingual information retrieval. The verbal equivalents, descriptors and non-descriptors, are used to expand the number of concepts and are given in Romanian, English and French. This approach saves the time of the indexer and provides more user-friendly and easier access to the bibliographic information. The multilingual aspect of the thesaurus enhances information access for a greater number of online users

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:56

0.043896805 = sum of:
  0.023929114 = product of:
    0.095716454 = sum of:
      0.095716454 = weight(_text_:authors in 3123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.095716454 = score(doc=3123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3123, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3123)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019967692 = product of:
    0.039935384 = sum of:
      0.039935384 = weight(_text_:22 in 3123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039935384 = score(doc=3123,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3123, 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=3123)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The vast amount of scientific publications available online makes it easier for students and researchers to reuse text from other authors and makes it harder for checking the originality of a given text. Reusing text without crediting the original authors is considered plagiarism. A number of studies have reported the prevalence of plagiarism in academia. As a consequence, numerous institutions and researchers are dedicated to devising systems to automate the process of checking for plagiarism. This work focuses on the problem of detecting text reuse in scientific papers. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (a) we survey the existing approaches for plagiarism detection based on content, based on content and structure, and based on citations and references; and (b) we compare content and citation-based approaches with the goal of evaluating whether they are complementary and if their combination can improve the quality of the detection. We carry out experiments with real data sets of scientific papers and concluded that a combination of the methods can be beneficial.

Date

20. 9.2016 19:51:22

0.04347308 = sum of:
  0.01994093 = product of:
    0.07976372 = sum of:
      0.07976372 = weight(_text_:authors in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07976372 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023532152 = product of:
    0.047064304 = sum of:
      0.047064304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047064304 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.04303615 = sum of:
  0.01974051 = product of:
    0.07896204 = sum of:
      0.07896204 = weight(_text_:authors in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07896204 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023295641 = product of:
    0.046591282 = sum of:
      0.046591282 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046591282 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study analyzes Spanish research on Knowledge Organization from 2002 to 2010. The first stage involved extraction of records from national and international databases that were interrogated. After getting the pertinent records, they we re normalized and processed according to the usual bibliometric procedure. The results point to a mature specialty follow ing the path of the past decade. There is a remarkable increase of male vs. female authors per publication, although the gender gap is not big. It is also evident that ther e is a remarkable internationalization in publication and that the content map of the specialty is more varied than in the previous decade.

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.04303615 = sum of:
  0.01974051 = product of:
    0.07896204 = sum of:
      0.07896204 = weight(_text_:authors in 1465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07896204 = score(doc=1465,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22395639 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1465, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1465)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023295641 = product of:
    0.046591282 = sum of:
      0.046591282 = weight(_text_:22 in 1465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046591282 = score(doc=1465,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17203096 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04912602 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1465, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1465)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Explore" is a user task introduced in the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. Through various case scenarios, the authors discuss how structured data, presented based on Linked Data principles and using knowledge organisation systems (KOS) as the backbone, extend the explore task within and beyond subject authority data.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik