Search (2368 results, page 1 of 119)

0.29630038 = product of:
  0.59260076 = sum of:
    0.14815019 = product of:
      0.44445056 = sum of:
        0.44445056 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.44445056 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.44445056 = weight(_text_:2f in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.44445056 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

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

0.246917 = product of:
  0.493834 = sum of:
    0.1234585 = product of:
      0.37037548 = sum of:
        0.37037548 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37037548 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.37037548 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.37037548 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.20507148 = product of:
  0.27342865 = sum of:
    0.0493834 = product of:
      0.14815019 = sum of:
        0.14815019 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14815019 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.209516 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.209516 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.014529257 = product of:
      0.029058514 = sum of:
        0.029058514 = weight(_text_:research in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029058514 = score(doc=5820,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The successes of information retrieval (IR) in recent decades were built upon bag-of-words representations. Effective as it is, bag-of-words is only a shallow text understanding; there is a limited amount of information for document ranking in the word space. This dissertation goes beyond words and builds knowledge based text representations, which embed the external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases, and provide richer and structured evidence for more advanced information retrieval systems. This thesis research first builds query representations with entities associated with the query. Entities' descriptions are used by query expansion techniques that enrich the query with explanation terms. Then we present a general framework that represents a query with entities that appear in the query, are retrieved by the query, or frequently show up in the top retrieved documents. A latent space model is developed to jointly learn the connections from query to entities and the ranking of documents, modeling the external evidence from knowledge bases and internal ranking features cooperatively. To further improve the quality of relevant entities, a defining factor of our query representations, we introduce learning to rank to entity search and retrieve better entities from knowledge bases. In the document representation part, this thesis research also moves one step forward with a bag-of-entities model, in which documents are represented by their automatic entity annotations, and the ranking is performed in the entity space.
This proposal includes plans to improve the quality of relevant entities with a co-learning framework that learns from both entity labels and document labels. We also plan to develop a hybrid ranking system that combines word based and entity based representations together with their uncertainties considered. At last, we plan to enrich the text representations with connections between entities. We propose several ways to infer entity graph representations for texts, and to rank documents using their structure representations. This dissertation overcomes the limitation of word based representations with external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases. We believe this thesis research is a solid start towards the new generation of intelligent, semantic, and structured information retrieval.

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.19630939 = product of:
  0.26174584 = sum of:
    0.06172925 = product of:
      0.18518774 = sum of:
        0.18518774 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18518774 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18518774 = weight(_text_:2f in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18518774 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
    0.01482886 = product of:
      0.02965772 = sum of:
        0.02965772 = weight(_text_:research in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965772 = score(doc=855,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Converting UDC numbers manually to a complex format such as the one mentioned above is an unrealistic expectation; supporting building these representations, as far as possible automatically, is a well-founded requirement. An additional advantage of this approach is that the existing records could also be processed and converted. In my dissertation I would like to prove also that it is possible to design and implement an algorithm that is able to convert pre-coordinated UDC numbers into the introduced format by identifying all their elements and revealing their whole syntactic structure as well. In my dissertation I will discuss a feasible way of building a UDC-specific XML schema for describing the most detailed and complicated UDC numbers (containing not only the common auxiliary signs and numbers, but also the different types of special auxiliaries). The schema definition is available online at: http://piros.udc-interpreter.hu#xsd. The primary goal of my research is to prove that it is possible to support building, retrieving, and analyzing UDC numbers without compromises, by taking the whole syntactic richness of the scheme by storing the UDC numbers reserving the meaning of pre-coordination. The research has also included the implementation of a software that parses UDC classmarks attended to prove that such solution can be applied automatically without any additional effort or even retrospectively on existing collections.

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>

0.19417454 = product of:
  0.3883491 = sum of:
    0.074075095 = product of:
      0.22222528 = sum of:
        0.22222528 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22222528 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.31427398 = weight(_text_:2f in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31427398 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.7948135 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

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

0.19336952 = product of:
  0.38673905 = sum of:
    0.090438664 = weight(_text_:media in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090438664 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.29630038 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29630038 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.17284189 = product of:
  0.34568378 = sum of:
    0.086420946 = product of:
      0.25926283 = sum of:
        0.25926283 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25926283 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.25926283 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25926283 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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].

0.14815019 = product of:
  0.29630038 = sum of:
    0.074075095 = product of:
      0.22222528 = sum of:
        0.22222528 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22222528 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22222528 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22222528 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

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

0.13486318 = product of:
  0.26972637 = sum of:
    0.24456096 = weight(_text_:media in 1387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24456096 = score(doc=1387,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        1.1195228 = fieldWeight in 1387, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1387)
    0.02516541 = product of:
      0.05033082 = sum of:
        0.05033082 = weight(_text_:research in 1387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05033082 = score(doc=1387,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 1387, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Qualitative research into contemporary media engagement is particularly challenged by the complexity and diversity of today's media channels. Further, the very conception of media is rapidly changing: social activities have become closely linked with media engagement. As media saturation in everyday life continues to expand, the study of everyday "practices" in "ordinary people's lives," or habitus , to use Bourdieu's term (1980), constitutes social identity and thus an important object for media research. I offer a reconceptualization of media engagement as a participatory media culture and outline a unique methodological approach developed for the study of this culture in new media spaces. The methodology incorporated use of a laptop to record and analyze the auto-ethnographic reports and actions of a panel of respondents. As an example of an outcome using this methodology, an extensive taxonomy of web sites is outlined, which can be helpful in disaggregating data on new media practices for media research. The methodology could be adapted widely to many disciplines interested in the everyday practices of media engagement.

0.1234585 = product of:
  0.246917 = sum of:
    0.06172925 = product of:
      0.18518774 = sum of:
        0.18518774 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18518774 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18518774 = weight(_text_:2f in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18518774 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.1234585 = product of:
  0.246917 = sum of:
    0.06172925 = product of:
      0.18518774 = sum of:
        0.18518774 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18518774 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18518774 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18518774 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.12059105 = product of:
  0.2411821 = sum of:
    0.22222528 = weight(_text_:2f in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22222528 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39540595 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
    0.01895682 = product of:
      0.03791364 = sum of:
        0.03791364 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03791364 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science. Vgl. Unter: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br%2F~ceramisch%2Fdownload_files%2Fpublications%2F2009%2Fp01.pdf.

Date

10. 1.2013 19:22:47

0.12001766 = product of:
  0.24003533 = sum of:
    0.18746944 = weight(_text_:media in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18746944 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.8581759 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.05256588 = sum of:
      0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020971177 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.0315947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0315947 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.

0.10307655 = product of:
  0.2061531 = sum of:
    0.18087733 = weight(_text_:media in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18087733 = score(doc=1739,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.8279993 = fieldWeight in 1739, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1739)
    0.025275761 = product of:
      0.050551523 = sum of:
        0.050551523 = weight(_text_:22 in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050551523 = score(doc=1739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Der Beitrag plädiert für Social Media (social media) als Untersuchungsgegenstand der Informationsverhaltensforschung. Dabei wird vorgestellt, welche Charakteristika mit Facebook, Twitter und Co. als Informationsquellen verbunden sind, welche Fragestellungen für die Informationsverhaltensforschung im Kontext von social media relevant sind und welche Herausforderungen bei der Untersuchung solcher Plattformen bestehen. Studien und Forschungsarbeiten zur microblogging-Plattform Twitter, werden im Zuge einer allgemeinen Argumentation als Beispiele für konkrete Forschungsinteressen herangezogen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 66(2015) H.1, S.22-28

0.09845334 = product of:
  0.19690669 = sum of:
    0.1787451 = weight(_text_:media in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1787451 = score(doc=4987,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.8182386 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
    0.018161573 = product of:
      0.036323145 = sum of:
        0.036323145 = weight(_text_:research in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036323145 = score(doc=4987,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Recently, social media has become a potentially new way for scholarly journals to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Scholarly journals have started promoting their research articles to a wide range of audiences via social media platforms. This article aims to investigate the social media presence of scholarly journals across disciplines. We extracted journals from Web of Science and searched for the social media presence of these journals on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant metrics and content relating to the journals' social media accounts were also crawled for data analysis. From our results, the social media presence of scholarly journals lies between 7.1% and 14.2% across disciplines; and it has shown a steady increase in the last decade. The popularity of scholarly journals on social media is distinct across disciplines. Further, we investigated whether social media metrics of journals can predict the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). We found that the number of followers and disciplines have significant effects on the JIF. In addition, a word co-occurrence network analysis was also conducted to identify popular topics discussed by scholarly journals on social media platforms. Finally, we highlight challenges and issues faced in this study and discuss future research directions.

0.09602068 = product of:
  0.19204137 = sum of:
    0.17945866 = weight(_text_:media in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17945866 = score(doc=239,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.82150507 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
    0.012582705 = product of:
      0.02516541 = sum of:
        0.02516541 = weight(_text_:research in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02516541 = score(doc=239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The study focuses on the web presence of the main Spanish media and seeks to determine whether hyperlink analysis of media and political parties can provide insight into their political orientation. The research included all major national media and political parties in Spain. Inlink and co-link data about these organizations were collected and analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and other statistical methods. In the MDS map, media are clustered based on their political orientation. There are significantly more co-links between media and parties with the same political orientation than there are between those with different political orientations. Findings from the study suggest the potential of using link analysis to gain new insights into the interactions among media and political parties.

0.09197053 = product of:
  0.18394107 = sum of:
    0.16614644 = weight(_text_:media in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16614644 = score(doc=3781,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.76056594 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
    0.017794631 = product of:
      0.035589263 = sum of:
        0.035589263 = weight(_text_:research in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035589263 = score(doc=3781,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

0.089532934 = product of:
  0.17906587 = sum of:
    0.13845536 = weight(_text_:media in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13845536 = score(doc=3008,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.6338049 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.040610507 = product of:
      0.081221014 = sum of:
        0.081221014 = weight(_text_:research in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081221014 = score(doc=3008,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.6104076 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The introduction of new technologies and access to new information channels continue to change the way media studies researchers work and the questions they seek to answer. We investigate the current practices of media studies researchers and how these practices affect their research questions. Through the analysis of 27 interviews about the research practices of media studies researchers during a research project we developed a model of the activities in their research cycle. We find that information gathering and analysis activities are dominating the research cycle. These activities influence the research outcomes as they determine how research questions asked by media studies researchers evolve. Specifically, we show how research questions are related to the availability and accessibility of data as well as new information sources for contextualization of the research topic. Our contribution is a comprehensive account of the overall research cycle of media studies researchers as well as specific aspects of the research cycle, i.e., information sources, information seeking challenges, and the development of research questions. This work confirms findings of previous work in this area using a previously unstudied group of researchers, as well as providing new details about how research questions evolve.

0.08329291 = product of:
  0.16658582 = sum of:
    0.056524165 = weight(_text_:media in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056524165 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
    0.11006165 = sum of:
      0.07846695 = weight(_text_:research in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07846695 = score(doc=1622,freq=28.0), product of:
          0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.58970976 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
            5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
              28.0 = termFreq=28.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
      0.0315947 = weight(_text_:22 in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0315947 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1622, 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=1622)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to engage in a systematic analysis of academic research that relies on the collection and use of Twitter data, creating topology of Twitter research that details the disciplines and methods of analysis, amount of tweets and users under analysis, the methods used to collect Twitter data, and accounts of ethical considerations related to these projects. Design/methodology/approach - Content analysis of 382 academic publications from 2006 to 2012 that used Twitter as their primary platform for data collection and analysis. Findings - The analysis of over 380 scholarly publications utilizing Twitter data reveals noteworthy trends related to the growth of Twitter-based research overall, the disciplines engaged in such research, the methods of acquiring Twitter data for analysis, and emerging ethical considerations of such research. Research limitations/implications - The findings provide a benchmark analysis that must be updated with the continued growth of Twitter-based research. Originality/value - The research is the first full-text systematic analysis of Twitter-based research projects, focussing on the growth in discipline and methods as well as its ethical implications. It is of value for the broader research community currently engaged in social media-based research, and will prompt reflexive evaluation of what research is occurring, how it is occurring, what is being done with Twitter data, and how researchers are addressing the ethics of Twitter-based research.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.082910284 = product of:
  0.16582057 = sum of:
    0.09790273 = weight(_text_:media in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09790273 = score(doc=2635,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 2635, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2635)
    0.067917846 = sum of:
      0.036323145 = weight(_text_:research in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036323145 = score(doc=2635,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2635, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2635)
      0.0315947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0315947 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046639 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2635, 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=2635)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Political sentiment analysis using social media, especially Twitter, has attracted wide interest in recent years. In such research, opinions about politicians are typically divided into positive, negative, or neutral. In our research, the goal is to mine political opinion from social media at a higher resolution by assessing statements of opinion related to the personality traits of politicians; this is an angle that has not yet been considered in social media research. A second goal is to contribute a novel retrieval-based approach for tracking public perception of personality using Gough and Heilbrun's Adjective Check List (ACL) of 110 terms describing key traits. This is in contrast to the typical lexical and machine-learning approaches used in sentiment analysis. High-precision search templates developed from the ACL were run on an 18-month span of Twitter posts mentioning Obama and Romney and these retrieved more than half a million tweets. For example, the results indicated that Romney was perceived as more of an achiever and Obama was perceived as somewhat more friendly. The traits were also aggregated into 14 broad personality dimensions. For example, Obama rated far higher than Romney on the Moderation dimension and lower on the Machiavellianism dimension. The temporal variability of such perceptions was explored.

Date

22. 1.2016 11:25:47