Search (820 results, page 1 of 41)

0.13403437 = product of:
  0.26806873 = sum of:
    0.26806873 = sum of:
      0.22664762 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22664762 = score(doc=1467,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.8498726 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.041421108 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041421108 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1467, 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=1467)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of the research undertaken was to get to know the degree of implementation of discovery tools in university libraries in the Iberian Peninsula. It also allowed an initial evaluation of the facilities offered by the tools implemented. With regard to the presence of discovery tools we find a different situation in the two countries, with a higher degree of implementation in Spain. As for the behaviour of the discovery layers, the eight tools evaluated performed appropriately. Discovery tools represent a considerable advance. The combining of the library's catalogue and indexes to articles with other sources of information in a single unified interface is an unquestionable improvement. However, catalogues and databases still fulfil some purposes better than discovery tools. Libraries need to consider their clients when putting up on their websites the various tools for gaining access to contents.

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

0.13394961 = product of:
  0.26789922 = sum of:
    0.26789922 = sum of:
      0.185057 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.185057 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.69391805 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
      0.082842216 = weight(_text_:22 in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082842216 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10.11.2015 10:22:31

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.11162467 = product of:
  0.22324935 = sum of:
    0.22324935 = sum of:
      0.15421417 = weight(_text_:discovery in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15421417 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.5782651 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.06903518 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06903518 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.10346714 = product of:
  0.20693427 = sum of:
    0.20693427 = sum of:
      0.17241669 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17241669 = score(doc=5842,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.64651996 = fieldWeight in 5842, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5842)
      0.03451759 = weight(_text_:22 in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03451759 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose A new approach to investigate serendipitous knowledge discovery (SKD) of health information is developed and tested to evaluate the information flow-serendipitous knowledge discovery (IF-SKD) model. The purpose of this paper is to determine the degree to which IF-SKD reflects physicians' information behaviour in a clinical setting and explore how the information system, Spark, designed to support physicians' SKD, meets its goals. Design/methodology/approach The proposed pre-experimental study design employs an adapted version of the McCay-Peet's (2013) and McCay-Peet et al.'s (2015) serendipitous digital environment (SDE) questionnaire research tool to address the complexity associated with defining the way in which SKD is understood and applied in system design. To test the IF-SKD model, the new data analysis approach combining confirmatory factor analysis, data imputation and Monte Carlo simulations was developed. Findings The piloting of the proposed novel analysis approach demonstrated that small sample information behaviour survey data can be meaningfully examined using a confirmatory factor analysis technique. Research limitations/implications This method allows to improve the reliability in measuring SKD and the generalisability of findings. Originality/value This paper makes an original contribution to developing and refining methods and tools of research into information-system-supported serendipitous discovery of information by health providers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.08277371 = product of:
  0.16554742 = sum of:
    0.16554742 = sum of:
      0.13793334 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13793334 = score(doc=1435,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.51721597 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
      0.027614072 = weight(_text_:22 in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027614072 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Background: Faceted navigation (sometimes known as faceted search, faceted browsing, or guided navigation) is the solution applied to an increasingly diverse range of search and discovery applications in the second decade of XXI century. Faceted search is now the dominant interaction paradigm for most of the e-commerce sites and becomes an important solution for universal and specialized search engines for the content-heavy sites such as media publishers, libraries and even non-profits - to make their often broad range of content more findable. Faceted search interfaces are increasingly used to support complex and iterative information-seeking tasks such as exploratory search. These interfaces provide clickable categories in conjunction with search result lists so that searchers can narrow and browse the results without reformulating their queries. User studies demonstrate that faceted search provides more effective information-seeking support to users than best-first search. Faceted search interfaces are presented as an answer to the investigative nature, uncertainty and ambiguity in exploratory search tasks. Objectives: The interesting research questions are: What is the scale of faceted navigating in search and discovery application? Is faceted search intuitive information finding? How faceted search tools affect searcher behavior - the tactics searchers use when querying, looking at search results, and selecting them? What are the key benefits and weaknesses of faceted navigating for users? In what sense faceted navigation is the panacea for information overload? What faceted implementations are the most prominent? What are the most important findings in the field of faceted search for the development of knowledge organization and information science? Methods: To answer research questions listed above, multiple methods will be applied: the conceptual analysis (to clarify the concept of faceted navigation); selected aspects of information seeking and exploratory search will be subject to critical literature review; critical analysis of some user studies will be performed. Case studies of several search and discovery tools will be used to exemplify concrete solutions in them. Findings: The study explores faceted navigation and reveals the most actual solutions in modern search engines, discovery tools, library catalogs. It attempts to explain specific features of this method from the users' perspective, not information architects. It helps knowledge organization specialists to confront theory with users' practice and propose new efficient support for information environments.

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

0.08092792 = product of:
  0.16185585 = sum of:
    0.16185585 = product of:
      0.48556754 = sum of:
        0.48556754 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48556754 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43198574 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.07813727 = product of:
  0.15627454 = sum of:
    0.15627454 = sum of:
      0.10794991 = weight(_text_:discovery in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10794991 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.4047855 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
      0.048324626 = weight(_text_:22 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048324626 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3361, 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=3361)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter considers the continuing relevance of the ideas of browsing, serendipity, information encountering and literature discovery in the context of the information retrieval (IR) environment of 2010, though its scope extends to the ideas in the broader contexts of information seeking and information-related behaviour. It is based around a selective review of the literature since 1990 and reflection and speculation on the results. The central focus is on questions of how the concept of browsing, serendipity and related ideas have changed in the new IR environment of the web and whether, indeed, they are still meaningfull concepts.

Pages

S.1-22

0.07813727 = product of:
  0.15627454 = sum of:
    0.15627454 = sum of:
      0.10794991 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10794991 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.4047855 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
      0.048324626 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048324626 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.

Date

19. 3.2019 12:17:22

0.0755534 = product of:
  0.1511068 = sum of:
    0.1511068 = sum of:
      0.0925285 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0925285 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.34695902 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.058578297 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058578297 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = 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.

0.07178174 = product of:
  0.14356348 = sum of:
    0.14356348 = sum of:
      0.109045886 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.109045886 = score(doc=2376,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.40889513 = fieldWeight in 2376, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2376)
      0.03451759 = weight(_text_:22 in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03451759 = score(doc=2376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2376, 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=2376)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization is needed everywhere. Its importance is marked by its pervasiveness. This paper will show many areas, tasks, and functions where proper use of knowledge organization, construed as broadly as the term implies, provides support for learning and understanding, for sense making and meaning making, for inference, and for discovery by people and computer programs and thereby will make the world a better place. The paper focuses not on metadata but rather on structuring and representing the actual data or knowledge itself and argues for more communication between the largely separated KO, ontology, data modeling, and semantic web communities to address the many problems that need better solutions. In particular, the paper discusses the application of knowledge organization in knowledge bases for question answering and cognitive systems, knowledge bases for information extraction from text or multimedia, linked data, big data and data analytics, electronic health records as one example, influence diagrams (causal maps), dynamic system models, process diagrams, concept maps, and other node-link diagrams, information systems in organizations, knowledge organization for understanding and learning, and knowledge transfer between domains. The paper argues for moving beyond triples to a more powerful representation using entities and multi-way relationships but not attributes.

Date

27.11.2015 20:52:22

0.07178174 = product of:
  0.14356348 = sum of:
    0.14356348 = sum of:
      0.109045886 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.109045886 = score(doc=5797,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.40889513 = fieldWeight in 5797, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5797)
      0.03451759 = weight(_text_:22 in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03451759 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"As knowledge brokers, we are living in interesting times for libraries and librarians. We wonder sometimes if our traditional tools like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system can cope with the onslaught of information. The categories provided don't always seem adequate for the knowledge-discovery habits of today's patrons. They have grown accustomed to new ways for their information needs to be met, from the fire-and-forget style of a hard-to-control classic Google search to the pervasive, always-on style of Google Now, anticipating users' information needs without their having even asked a verbal question. Contrariwise, I believe that we, as librarians, could be making better use of our tools. Many (like the DDC) are a reflection of the same social and epistemological forces that brought about modernity at the turn of the last century. We as librarians are in the unique position of providing services that are as ground-breaking as these tools. As we see the need to provide unique and cutting-edge knowledge discovery to our users, I argue in this article that the DDC can play a key role in fulfilling this purpose."

Source

Knowledge quest. 42(2013) no.2, S.22-29

0.06743994 = product of:
  0.13487989 = sum of:
    0.13487989 = product of:
      0.40463963 = sum of:
        0.40463963 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40463963 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43198574 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = 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)
  0.5 = 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

0.066974804 = product of:
  0.13394961 = sum of:
    0.13394961 = sum of:
      0.0925285 = weight(_text_:discovery in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0925285 = score(doc=4954,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.34695902 = fieldWeight in 4954, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4954)
      0.041421108 = weight(_text_:22 in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041421108 = score(doc=4954,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4954, 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=4954)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the use of machine learning and other advances, modern information search systems make it easy for searchers to access information to meet their most frequent information needs. Building from Kuhlthau's concepts of exploration and differentiating, this article argues that along with the benefits of greater accessibility, these advances impede the development of information literacy, conceptualized as processes for planning, accessing, judging and communicating information. It is argued that information literacy emerges during interaction with search systems and modern system designs hide or render unworkable the contextual information needed for the judgment processes of information literacy. In response to these concerns, the article contributes desiderata for new designs that facilitate the discovery, navigation and use of context information.

Date

16. 3.2019 14:33:22

0.066974804 = product of:
  0.13394961 = sum of:
    0.13394961 = sum of:
      0.0925285 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0925285 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.34695902 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.041421108 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041421108 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.066974804 = product of:
  0.13394961 = sum of:
    0.13394961 = sum of:
      0.0925285 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0925285 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.34695902 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
      0.041421108 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041421108 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.066974804 = product of:
  0.13394961 = sum of:
    0.13394961 = sum of:
      0.0925285 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0925285 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.34695902 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
      0.041421108 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041421108 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050953664 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06542753 = product of:
  0.13085505 = sum of:
    0.13085505 = product of:
      0.2617101 = sum of:
        0.2617101 = weight(_text_:discovery in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2617101 = score(doc=211,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.9813483 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

E-discovery refers generally to the process by which one party (for example, the plaintiff) is entitled to discover evidence in the form of electronically stored information that is held by another party (for example, the defendant), and that is relevant to some matter that is the subject of civil litigation (that is, what is commonly called a "lawsuit"). Information Retrieval for E-Discovery describes the emergence of the field, identifies the information retrieval issues that arise, reviews the work to date on this topic, and summarizes major open issues. Information Retrieval for E-Discovery is an ideal primer for anyone with an interest in e-discovery; be it researchers who first practiced law but now study information retrieval, or those who studied information retrieval but now practice law.

Content

Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. The E-Discovery Process 3. Information Retrieval for E-Discovery 4. Evaluating E-Discovery 5. Experimental Evaluation 6. Looking to the Future 7. Conclusion A. Interpreting Legal Citations Acknowledgments Notations and Acronyms References

0.06542753 = product of:
  0.13085505 = sum of:
    0.13085505 = product of:
      0.2617101 = sum of:
        0.2617101 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2617101 = score(doc=5569,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.9813483 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.

0.06393382 = product of:
  0.12786764 = sum of:
    0.12786764 = product of:
      0.25573528 = sum of:
        0.25573528 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25573528 = score(doc=1216,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.9589441 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several researchers have studied serendipitous knowledge discovery in information-seeking behavior. Electronic data in the form of semantic predications have a potential role in literature-based discovery, which can be guided by serendipitous knowledge discovery research findings. We sought to model information-seeking behavior within the context of serendipitous knowledge discovery by leveraging existing research. These efforts were done with an eye for a potential literature-based discovery application that utilizes semantic predications. We performed a literature search, reviewed the results, and applied the findings in developing a model for serendipitous knowledge discovery as an information-seeking behavior. The literature review indicated four important themes in serendipitous knowledge discovery: iteration, change or clarification, a seeker's prior knowledge, and the role of information organization and presentation. The Interaction Flow in Serendipitous Knowledge Discovery (IF-SKD) model includes these themes, and accommodates iterative, evolving search interests. Output can be presented in a manner to enhance short-term memory conceptualization and connections with prior knowledge. Although the IF-SKD model is currently a theoretical structure, its utility is demonstrated through replicating a literature-based discovery event, using a documented search method within the model's steps. The IF-SKD model can potentially serve as the foundation for future literature-based discovery applications.

0.06358413 = product of:
  0.12716825 = sum of:
    0.12716825 = product of:
      0.2543365 = sum of:
        0.2543365 = weight(_text_:discovery in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2543365 = score(doc=3336,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.9536991 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book shows you how to harness the power of linked data and web-scale discovery systems to manage and link widely varied content across your library collection. Libraries are increasingly using web-scale discovery systems to help clients find a wide assortment of library materials, including books, journal articles, special collections, archival collections, videos, music and open access collections. Depending on the library material catalogued, the discovery system might need to negotiate different metadata standards, such as AACR, RDA, RAD, FOAF, VRA Core, METS, MODS, RDF and more. In Managing Metadata in Web-Scale Discovery Systems, editor Louise Spiteri and a range of international experts show you how to: * maximize the effectiveness of web-scale discovery systems * provide a smooth and seamless discovery experience to your users * help users conduct searches that yield relevant results * manage the sheer volume of items to which you can provide access, so your users can actually find what they need * maintain shared records that reflect the needs, languages, and identities of culturally and ethnically varied communities * manage metadata both within, across, and outside, library discovery tools by converting your library metadata to linked open data that all systems can access * manage user generated metadata from external services such as Goodreads and LibraryThing * mine user generated metadata to better serve your users in areas such as collection development or readers' advisory. The book will be essential reading for cataloguers, technical services and systems librarians and library and information science students studying modules on metadata, cataloguing, systems design, data management, and digital libraries. The book will also be of interest to those managing metadata in archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions.

Content

1. Introduction: the landscape of web-scale discovery - Louise Spiteri 2. Sharing metadata across discovery systems - Marshall Breeding, Angela Kroeger and Heather Moulaison Sandy 3. Managing linked open data across discovery systems - Ali Shiri and Danoosh Davoodi 4. Redefining library resources in discovery systems - Christine DeZelar-Tiedman 5. Managing volume in discovery systems - Aaron Tay 6. Managing outsourced metadata in discovery systems - Laurel Tarulli 7. Managing user-generated metadata in discovery systems - Louise Spiteri

RSWK

Metadaten / Discovery Service / Datenmanagement / Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek

Subject

Metadaten / Discovery Service / Datenmanagement / Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek