Search (1422 results, page 1 of 72)

0.12554763 = sum of:
  0.097996555 = product of:
    0.29398966 = sum of:
      0.29398966 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.29398966 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5230965 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = 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)
  0.02755108 = product of:
    0.05510216 = sum of:
      0.05510216 = weight(_text_:work in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05510216 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

On a scientific concept hierarchy, a parent concept may have a few attributes, each of which has multiple values being a group of child concepts. We call these attributes facets: classification has a few facets such as application (e.g., face recognition), model (e.g., svm, knn), and metric (e.g., precision). In this work, we aim at building faceted concept hierarchies from scientific literature. Hierarchy construction methods heavily rely on hypernym detection, however, the faceted relations are parent-to-child links but the hypernym relation is a multi-hop, i.e., ancestor-to-descendent link with a specific facet "type-of". We use information extraction techniques to find synonyms, sibling concepts, and ancestor-descendent relations from a data science corpus. And we propose a hierarchy growth algorithm to infer the parent-child links from the three types of relationships. It resolves conflicts by maintaining the acyclic structure of a hierarchy.

Content

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

0.123287216 = sum of:
  0.077830255 = product of:
    0.23349077 = sum of:
      0.23349077 = weight(_text_:objects in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23349077 = score(doc=1066,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.7119882 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.04545696 = product of:
    0.09091392 = sum of:
      0.09091392 = weight(_text_:work in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09091392 = score(doc=1066,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization structures are dependent upon domain-analytical processes for determining ontological imperatives. Boundary objects-terms used in multiple domains but understood differently in each-are ontological clash points. Cognitive Work Analysis is an effective qualitative methodology for domain analysis of a group of people who work together. CWA was used recently to understand the ontology of a human resources firm. Boundary objects from the taxonomy that emerged from narrative analysis are presented here for individual analysis.

0.11912905 = sum of:
  0.089870624 = product of:
    0.26961187 = sum of:
      0.26961187 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26961187 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.029258423 = product of:
    0.058516845 = sum of:
      0.058516845 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058516845 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.

Date

21.11.2019 18:46:22

0.10900509 = sum of:
  0.06354813 = product of:
    0.1906444 = sum of:
      0.1906444 = weight(_text_:objects in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1906444 = score(doc=1067,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.04545696 = product of:
    0.09091392 = sum of:
      0.09091392 = weight(_text_:work in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09091392 = score(doc=1067,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization structures are dependent upon domain-analytical processes for determining ontological imperatives. Boundary objects-terms used in multiple domains but understood differently in each-are ontological clash points. Cognitive Work Analysis is an effective qualitative methodology for domain analysis of a group of people who work together. CWA was used recently to understand the ontology of a human resources firm. Boundary objects from the taxonomy that emerged from narrative analysis are presented here for individual analysis.

0.10599106 = sum of:
  0.06419331 = product of:
    0.19257993 = sum of:
      0.19257993 = weight(_text_:objects in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19257993 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.04179775 = product of:
    0.0835955 = sum of:
      0.0835955 = weight(_text_:22 in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0835955 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3277, 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=3277)
    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

0.105259456 = product of:
  0.21051891 = sum of:
    0.21051891 = sum of:
      0.11020432 = weight(_text_:work in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11020432 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.4866296 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.100314595 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100314595 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, 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=591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.097996555 = product of:
  0.19599311 = sum of:
    0.19599311 = product of:
      0.5879793 = sum of:
        0.5879793 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.5879793 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5230965 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.061700378 = 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.

0.09426273 = sum of:
  0.06671165 = product of:
    0.20013495 = sum of:
      0.20013495 = weight(_text_:objects in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20013495 = score(doc=2965,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.6102756 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02755108 = product of:
    0.05510216 = sum of:
      0.05510216 = weight(_text_:work in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05510216 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Repositories are web portals that provide access to learning objects. Resources can be easily located through the use of metadata, an important factor to increase the ease of searching for digital resources in repositories. However, there are as yet no similarly effective methods in order to increase access to learning objects. The main goal of this paper is to offer an alternative search system to improve access to academic learning objects and publications for several repositories through the use of information visualisation and Simple Knowledge Organization Schemes (SKOS). To this end, we have developed a visual framework and have used the Organic.Edunet and AGRIS as case studies in order to access academic and scientific publication resources respectively. In this paper, we present the results of our work through a test aimed at evaluating the whole visual framework, and offer recommendations on how to integrate this type of visual search into academic repositories based on SKOS.

0.092806555 = sum of:
  0.06354813 = product of:
    0.1906444 = sum of:
      0.1906444 = weight(_text_:objects in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1906444 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.029258423 = product of:
    0.058516845 = sum of:
      0.058516845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058516845 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.08951311 = sum of:
  0.022695763 = product of:
    0.06808729 = sum of:
      0.06808729 = weight(_text_:objects in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06808729 = score(doc=2186,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.20761997 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06681734 = sum of:
    0.045918465 = weight(_text_:work in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045918465 = score(doc=2186,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061700378 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
    0.020898875 = weight(_text_:22 in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020898875 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061700378 = queryNorm
        0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)

Date

26. 8.2015 19:22:31

Footnote

A group of Indigenous seniors, living in Toronto, considered how a collection of handcrafted objects could be used to evoke memory and foster meaning-making in a community setting. In "To Every Artifact Its Voice: Creating Surrogates for Hand-Crafted Indigenous Objects" Howarth and Knight examine the possibilities that stem from traditional approaches to representing and organizing artifacts. Within Canada, the interest in Indigenous knowledge organization is evident in libraries, archives, as well as other types of community institutional settings. A particularly powerful challenge is faced by the National Research Centre through its mandate to apply metadata resulting from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A description of the National Research Centre's "living archives" is presented by Lougheed, Moran, and Callison. Their article, "Reconciliation through Description: Using Metadata to Realize the Vision of the National Research Centre for Truth and Reconciliation," emphasizes the importance of including Indigenous people in organizing knowledge in a "living archive." And finally from Canada, the Nunavut Libraries Online consortium and Translation Bureau in Nunavut have partnered to address the challenge of organizing multilingual collections. There are three official languages in Nunavut: Inuit (Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun), English, and French. In her discussion of Nunavut libraries, Rigby examines the shared cataloging practices that have resulted in a common vocabulary for creating bibliographic records.
The foreword and afterword bookend the volume with aspirations for transformation. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, groundbreaking Maori thinker, theorist, and activist, and Ingrid Parent, university librarian and forerunner in raising awareness of Indigenous knowledge revitalization among library institutions, each express their vision for Indigenous knowledge and libraries. Upon reflection, it is evident to those of us in New Zealand, Canada, and the United States that research in Indigenous knowledge organization affords an opportunity for the work itself--the knowledge--to be expressed at a higher level. The level is higher because it strengthens the potential for transforming the work of other Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and practitioners. We have this work, our work, which we have shared in this special issue. Now, it will be more meaningful because we have shared it. The theories, philosophies, and practices reported here give voice to the power, significance, and relevance of Indigenous knowledge organization. Enjoy!"

0.08833506 = sum of:
  0.032096654 = product of:
    0.09628996 = sum of:
      0.09628996 = weight(_text_:objects in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09628996 = score(doc=5312,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.056238405 = product of:
    0.11247681 = sum of:
      0.11247681 = weight(_text_:work in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11247681 = score(doc=5312,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.4966643 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.

0.08668473 = product of:
  0.17336947 = sum of:
    0.17336947 = sum of:
      0.12321217 = weight(_text_:work in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12321217 = score(doc=2647,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.54406846 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.050157297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050157297 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:13:32

0.08668473 = product of:
  0.17336947 = sum of:
    0.17336947 = sum of:
      0.12321217 = weight(_text_:work in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12321217 = score(doc=3589,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.54406846 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
      0.050157297 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050157297 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0816638 = product of:
  0.1633276 = sum of:
    0.1633276 = product of:
      0.4899828 = sum of:
        0.4899828 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4899828 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5230965 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.061700378 = 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

0.07954848 = sum of:
  0.05446983 = product of:
    0.16340949 = sum of:
      0.16340949 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16340949 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.025078649 = product of:
    0.050157297 = sum of:
      0.050157297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050157297 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.07855227 = sum of:
  0.055593036 = product of:
    0.1667791 = sum of:
      0.1667791 = weight(_text_:objects in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1667791 = score(doc=2494,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.508563 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.022959232 = product of:
    0.045918465 = sum of:
      0.045918465 = weight(_text_:work in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045918465 = score(doc=2494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tag recommendation strategies that exploit term co-occurrence patterns with tags previously assigned to the target object have consistently produced state-of-the-art results. However, such techniques work only for objects with previously assigned tags. Here we focus on tag recommendation for objects with no tags, a variation of the well-known \textit{cold start} problem. We start by evaluating state-of-the-art co-occurrence based methods in cold start. Our results show that the effectiveness of these methods suffers in this situation. Moreover, we show that employing various automatic filtering strategies to generate an initial tag set that enables the use of co-occurrence patterns produces only marginal improvements. We then propose a new approach that exploits both positive and negative user feedback to iteratively select input tags along with a genetic programming strategy to learn the recommendation function. Our experimental results indicate that extending the methods to include user relevance feedback leads to gains in precision of up to 58% over the best baseline in cold start scenarios and gains of up to 43% over the best baseline in objects that contain some initial tags (i.e., no cold start). We also show that our best relevance-feedback-driven strategy performs well even in scenarios that lack user cooperation (i.e., users may refuse to provide feedback) and user reliability (i.e., users may provide the wrong feedback).

0.07855227 = sum of:
  0.055593036 = product of:
    0.1667791 = sum of:
      0.1667791 = weight(_text_:objects in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1667791 = score(doc=3372,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.508563 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.022959232 = product of:
    0.045918465 = sum of:
      0.045918465 = weight(_text_:work in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045918465 = score(doc=3372,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.07855227 = sum of:
  0.055593036 = product of:
    0.1667791 = sum of:
      0.1667791 = weight(_text_:objects in 5302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1667791 = score(doc=5302,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.508563 = fieldWeight in 5302, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5302)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.022959232 = product of:
    0.045918465 = sum of:
      0.045918465 = weight(_text_:work in 5302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045918465 = score(doc=5302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 5302, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5302)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The connections and contexts surrounding information shared in social settings must be accounted for, and this is particularly true for online communities that are information-centric. This article presents a mixed-methods study of LibraryThing and Goodreads, which have characteristics of information-centric online communities and social digital libraries, with attention to their roles as boundary objects, users' information values, and information behavior, and other boundaries and boundary objects at play. Content analysis of messages, a survey of users, and qualitative interviews show LibraryThing and Goodreads help establish community and organizational structure; support sharing of information values; and facilitate the building and maintenance of social ties. Translation of meanings and understandings within and between communities is a key activity in these roles. Online communities and social digital libraries should highlight translation processes and resources; provide user profiles and off-topic spaces and encourage their use; take a sociotechnical approach to tailor technology and community features to the right audiences; and facilitate the establishment of shared structure, values, and ties and the work of boundary spanners. Further implications exist for research on and theorizing of information-centric online communities, boundaries, and boundary objects as part of the sociotechnical infrastructure surrounding online information sharing.

0.07801512 = sum of:
  0.032096654 = product of:
    0.09628996 = sum of:
      0.09628996 = weight(_text_:objects in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09628996 = score(doc=5253,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.045918465 = product of:
    0.09183693 = sum of:
      0.09183693 = weight(_text_:work in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09183693 = score(doc=5253,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.40552467 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Virtual collaborations bring together people who must work together despite having varied access to and understanding of the work at hand. In many cases, the collaborations are technology supported, meaning that the work is done through shared documents. We develop a framework articulating the characteristics of documents supporting collaborators with access to asymmetric knowledge versus those with access to symmetric knowledge. Drawing on theories about document genre, boundary objects, and provenance, we hypothesize that documents supporting asymmetric collaborators are likely to articulate or prescribe their own (a) purpose, (b) context of use, (c) content and form, and (d) provenance in greater detail than documents supporting symmetric collaborators. We explore these hypotheses through content analysis of documents and instructions for documents from a variety of free/libre open-source projects (FLOSS). We present findings consistent with the hypotheses developed as well as results extending beyond our theory-derived assumptions. When participants have access to the same knowledge, the study suggests that prescriptions about the content of documents become less important compared with prescriptions about the context, provenance, and process of work. The study contributes with a dynamic perspective on communicative practices that consider an often-uneven distribution of knowledge in virtual collaborations.

0.077479094 = sum of:
  0.038515985 = product of:
    0.11554795 = sum of:
      0.11554795 = weight(_text_:objects in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11554795 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03896311 = product of:
    0.07792622 = sum of:
      0.07792622 = weight(_text_:work in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07792622 = score(doc=2204,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061700378 = queryNorm
          0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer's metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can se categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.