Search (660 results, page 1 of 33)

0.08711787 = product of:
  0.17423575 = sum of:
    0.17423575 = product of:
      0.3484715 = sum of:
        0.3484715 = weight(_text_:m.d in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3484715 = score(doc=546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32365477 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            1.0766765 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.055387795 = product of:
  0.11077559 = sum of:
    0.11077559 = product of:
      0.44310236 = sum of:
        0.44310236 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.44310236 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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.

0.046156496 = product of:
  0.09231299 = sum of:
    0.09231299 = product of:
      0.36925197 = sum of:
        0.36925197 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36925197 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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

0.037336234 = product of:
  0.07467247 = sum of:
    0.07467247 = product of:
      0.14934494 = sum of:
        0.14934494 = weight(_text_:m.d in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14934494 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32365477 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.037336234 = product of:
  0.07467247 = sum of:
    0.07467247 = product of:
      0.14934494 = sum of:
        0.14934494 = weight(_text_:m.d in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14934494 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32365477 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.032309547 = product of:
  0.064619094 = sum of:
    0.064619094 = product of:
      0.25847638 = sum of:
        0.25847638 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25847638 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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].

0.031131722 = product of:
  0.062263444 = sum of:
    0.062263444 = product of:
      0.24905378 = sum of:
        0.24905378 = weight(_text_:editor's in 4757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24905378 = score(doc=4757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41795868 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 4757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4757)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The editor's decision where and how to place items on a screen is crucial for the design of information displays, such as websites. We developed a statistical model that can facilitate automating this process by predicting the perceived importance of screen items from their location and size. The model was developed based on a 2-step experiment in which we asked participants to rate the importance of text articles that differed in size, screen location, and title size. Articles were either presented for 0.5 seconds or for unlimited time. In a stepwise regression analysis, the model's variables accounted for 65% of the variance in the importance ratings. In a validation study, the model predicted 85% of the variance of the mean apparent importance of screen items. The model also predicted individual raters' importance perception ratings. We discuss the implications of such a model in the context of automating layout generation. An automated system for layout generation can optimize data presentation to suit users' individual information and display preferences.

0.031113526 = product of:
  0.06222705 = sum of:
    0.06222705 = product of:
      0.1244541 = sum of:
        0.1244541 = weight(_text_:m.d in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1244541 = score(doc=264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32365477 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.031113526 = product of:
  0.06222705 = sum of:
    0.06222705 = product of:
      0.1244541 = sum of:
        0.1244541 = weight(_text_:m.d in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1244541 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32365477 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

0.027693897 = product of:
  0.055387795 = sum of:
    0.055387795 = product of:
      0.22155118 = sum of:
        0.22155118 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22155118 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.027693897 = product of:
  0.055387795 = sum of:
    0.055387795 = product of:
      0.22155118 = sum of:
        0.22155118 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22155118 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.025943102 = product of:
  0.051886205 = sum of:
    0.051886205 = product of:
      0.20754482 = sum of:
        0.20754482 = weight(_text_:editor's in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20754482 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41795868 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikis are designed to support collaborative editing, without focusing on individual contribution, such that it is not straightforward to determine who contributed to a specific page. However, as wikis are increasingly adopted in settings such as business, government, and education, where editors are largely driven by career goals, there is a perceived need to modify wikis so that each editor's contributions are clearly presented. In this paper we introduce an approach for assessing the contributions of wiki editors along several authorship categories, as well as a variety of information glyphs for visualizing this information. We report on three types of analysis: (a) assessing the accuracy of the algorithms, (b) estimating the understandability of the visualizations, and (c) exploring wiki editors' perceptions regarding the extent to which such an approach is likely to change their behavior. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed automated techniques can estimate fairly accurately the quantity of editors' contributions across various authorship categories, and that the visualizations we introduced can clearly convey this information to users. Moreover, our user study suggests that such tools are likely to change wiki editors' behavior. We discuss both the potential benefits and risks associated with solutions for estimating and visualizing wiki contributions.

0.025943102 = product of:
  0.051886205 = sum of:
    0.051886205 = product of:
      0.20754482 = sum of:
        0.20754482 = weight(_text_:editor's in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20754482 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41795868 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In economics, the principal-agent problem is the difficulty in motivating one party (the agent), to act in the best interests of another (the principal) rather than in his own interests. We consider the example of a journal editor (the principal) wondering whether his or her reviewer (the agent) is recommending rejection of a manuscript because it does not have enough quality to be published or because the reviewer dislikes effort and he/she must work to acquire in-depth knowledge of the content of the manuscript. The reviewer's effort provides him or her with superior information about a manuscript's quality. If this information is not correctly communicated, the reviewer has more information when compared with the journal editor. This inherently leads to an encouragement of moral hazard, where the editor will not know whether the reviewer has done his or her job in accordance to the editor's interest. Prescriptions need to be given as to how the journal editor should control the reviewers to curb self-interest. Besides the associate editors monitoring the peer-review process, incentives can be employed to limit moral hazard on the part of the reviewer. Drawing on agency theory, we examine the incentives motivating the reviewers to expend effort to generate information about the quality of submissions. This model predicts that for reviewers early in their careers, promotion-based incentives may mean there is no need for within-job incentives, but also that within-job rewards for a referee's performance should depend on individual differences in ability and promotion opportunities.

0.025943102 = product of:
  0.051886205 = sum of:
    0.051886205 = product of:
      0.20754482 = sum of:
        0.20754482 = weight(_text_:editor's in 1859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20754482 = score(doc=1859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41795868 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 1859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1859)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Adverse selection occurs when a firm signs a contract with a potential worker but his/her key skills are still not known at that time, which leads the employer to make a wrong decision. In this article, we study the example of adverse selection of reviewers when a potential referee whose ability is his private information faces a finite sequence of review processes for several scholarly journals, one after the other. Our editor's problem is to design a system that guarantees that each manuscript is reviewed by a referee if and only if the reviewer's ability matches the review's complexity. As is typically the case in solving problems of adverse selection in agency theory, the journal editor offers a menu of contracts to the potential referee, from which the reviewer chooses the contract that is best for him given his ability. The optimal contract will be the one that provides the right incentives to match the complexity of the review and the ability of the reviewer. The payment of contracts is made through a proportional increment of the reviewer factor, which measures the importance of reviewers to their field.

0.02519909 = product of:
  0.05039818 = sum of:
    0.05039818 = product of:
      0.10079636 = sum of:
        0.10079636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10079636 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1628264 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.023078248 = product of:
  0.046156496 = sum of:
    0.046156496 = product of:
      0.18462598 = sum of:
        0.18462598 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18462598 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023078248 = product of:
  0.046156496 = sum of:
    0.046156496 = product of:
      0.18462598 = sum of:
        0.18462598 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18462598 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023078248 = product of:
  0.046156496 = sum of:
    0.046156496 = product of:
      0.18462598 = sum of:
        0.18462598 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18462598 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39420652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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>

0.022273058 = product of:
  0.044546116 = sum of:
    0.044546116 = product of:
      0.08909223 = sum of:
        0.08909223 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08909223 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1628264 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, 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=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.022273058 = product of:
  0.044546116 = sum of:
    0.044546116 = product of:
      0.08909223 = sum of:
        0.08909223 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08909223 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1628264 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046497524 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, 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=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38