Search (709 results, page 1 of 36)

0.11631456 = sum of:
  0.095143616 = product of:
    0.28543085 = sum of:
      0.28543085 = weight(_text_:themes in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28543085 = score(doc=4152,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.8523769 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.021170942 = product of:
    0.042341884 = sum of:
      0.042341884 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042341884 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.

Date

17. 2.2018 18:22:25

0.085499026 = product of:
  0.17099805 = sum of:
    0.17099805 = product of:
      0.3419961 = sum of:
        0.3419961 = weight(_text_:taggings in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3419961 = score(doc=4519,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.53704107 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = queryNorm
            0.63681555 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung" Im Oktober 2008 startete an der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung". Über zwei Jahre hinweg wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag das Web-2.0-Phänomen Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und somit der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten leisten kann. Die freie Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in Datenbanken durch die Nutzer selbst hatte sich bereits auf vielen Plattformen als äußerst effizient herausgestellt, insbesondere bei Inhalten, die einer automatischen Erschließung nicht zugänglich sind. So wurden riesige Mengen von Bildern (FlickR), Filmen (YouTube) oder Musik (LastFM) durch das Tagging recherchierbar und identifizierbar gemacht. Die Fragestellung des Projektes war entsprechend, ob und in welcher Qualität sich durch das gleiche Verfahren beispielsweise Dokumente auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften erschließen lassen. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage, die ggf. weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Sacherschließung durch Fachreferenten haben konnte, wurde ein ganzer Komplex von Teilfragen und Teilschritten ermittelt bzw. konzipiert. Im Kern ging es aber in allen Untersuchungsschritten immer um zwei zentrale Dimensionen, nämlich um die "Akzeptanz" und um die "Qualität" des Taggings. Die Akzeptanz des Taggings wurde zunächst bei den Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern der Universität Mannheim evaluiert. Für bestimmte Zeiträume wurden Tagging-Systeme in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen an die Recherchedienste der Universitätsbibliothek angebunden. Die Akzeptanz der einzelnen Systemausprägungen konnte dann durch die Analyse von Logfiles und durch Datenbankabfragen ausgewertet werden. Für die Qualität der Erschließung wurde auf einen Methodenmix zurückgegriffen, der im Verlauf des Projektes immer wieder an aktuelle Entwicklungen und an die Ergebnisse aus den vorangegangenen Analysen angepaßt wurde. Die Tags wurden hinsichtlich ihres Beitrags zum Information Retrieval mit Verfahren der automatischen Indexierung von Volltexten sowie mit der Erschließung durch Fachreferenten verglichen. Am Schluss sollte eine gut begründete Empfehlung stehen, wie bisher nicht erschlossene Dokumente am besten indexiert werden können: automatisch, mit Tags oder durch eine Kombination von beiden Verfahren.

Content

"Was vom Tagging übrig blieb: Empfehlungen und Fazit - Akzeptanz des Taggings Es kann von einer grundsätzlich hohen Bereitschaft der Nutzer ausgegangen werden, wissenschaftliche Quellen durch Tags zu organisieren und zu erschließen. Diese Bereitschaft hängt allerdings wesentlich davon ab, ob ein System durch entsprechende Datenbestände genügend Ergebnisse liefert, um für eine Recherche reizvoll zu erscheinen. Tagging-Systeme, die als "Insellösung" auf die Nutzer einer einzelnen Institution beschränkt sind, werden deshalb nicht ausreichend angenommen. Anbindungen an externe Dienste, deren Datenbestand sich aus vielen verschiedenen Quellen und Verknüpfungen speist, erfahren dagegen eine sehr gute Resonanz. Wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken wird deshalb empfohlen, möglichst schnelle und einfache Verlinkungen zu erfolgreichen Tagging-Plattformen wie BibSonomy oder Citeulike anzubieten. Die Anzeige der dort verfügbaren Daten im eigenen Katalog ist ebenfalls wünschenswert und wird von den Nutzern befürwortet. - Verfahren zur Analyse von Tagging-Daten Für die Analyse der äußerst heterogenen Textdaten, die in Tagging-Systemen entstehen, wurden spezifische Verfahren entwickelt und angewendet, die je nach Datenausschnitt und Erkenntniszweck optimiert wurden. Nach erfolgreichen Testläufen wurde der Methodenmix jeweils für größere Datenmengen eingesetzt, um die aus den explorativen Studien gewonnen Hypothesen zu überprüfen. Dieses Vorgehen hat sich als äußerst fruchtbar herausgestellt. Alle durchgeführten Schritte und die daraus gewonnenen Erkenntnisse wurden in diversen Artikeln und Beiträgen veröffentlicht sowie auf zahlreichen nationalen und internationalen Konferenzen vorgestellt, um sie der Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft zur Verfügung zu stellen.
- Struktur der Tags Der Vergleich von zwei großen Tagging-Systemen hat große Ähnlichkeiten in der grammatikalischen Struktur der Tagging-Daten ergeben. Es werden mehrheitlich Substantive bzw. Eigennamen zur Erschließung sowie auch Verben zur Organisation der Quellen eingesetzt. Systembedingt kann außerdem eine große Menge von Wortkombinationen und Wortneuschöpfungen konstatiert werden, die aus den unterschiedlichsten Beweggründen und für sehr unterschiedliche Zwecke gebildet werden. Nur ein geringer Teil der Tags entspricht den formalen Kriterien kontrollierter Vokabulare. Eine besondere Hierarchisierung der Tags innerhalb eines Tagging-Systems über den Indikator der Häufigkeit der Nutzung hinaus hat sich nicht ergeben. In inhaltlicher Hinsicht hat sich eine klare Dominanz informatiknaher bzw. naturwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen gezeigt, wobei es sich hierbei um systemspezifische Präferenzen handelt. Insgesamt ist eine klare Tendenz zu zunehmender inhaltlicher Diversifikation in den Tagging-Systemen zu erkennen, was mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit der wachsenden Akzeptanz durch breitere Nutzergruppen zuzuschreiben ist. - Qualität der Tags Bei der Evaluation der Qualität der Tags bestätigte sich die Einschätzung, dass sich die Verschlagwortung mittels Tagging von jener durch Fachreferenten grundsätzlich unterscheidet. Nur ein kleiner Teil der Konzepte wurde in den beiden Systemen semantisch identisch oder wenigstens analog vergeben. Grundsätzlich liegen für eine Ressource fast immer mehr Tags als Schlagwörter vor, die zudem wesentlich häufiger exklusiv im Tagging-System zu finden sind. Diese Tatsache berührt jedoch nicht den inhaltlichen Erschließungsgrad einer Quelle, der sich trotz einer geringeren Anzahl an SWD-Schlagwörtern pro Ressource in beiden Systemen als gleichwertig gezeigt hat. Dennoch ist das Ausmaß der semantischen Abdeckung des Taggings überraschend, da sie der allgemeinen Erwartungshaltung von einer deutlich höheren Qualität der Verschlagwortung durch die professionelle Inhaltserschließung teilweise widerspricht. Diese Erwartung ist zumindest bezüglich der inhaltlichen Dimension zu relativieren.
- Fazit Der Beitrag des Taggings im Rahmen des bibliothekarischen Kontextes ist vor allem in der ergänzenden Erweiterung der Recherche- und Literaturverwaltungsfunktionalitäten der Online-Kataloge zu sehen. Durch Tagging können diese um eine nutzerorientierte Komponente ergänzt werden und signifkant an Attraktivität gewinnen. Systeme mit einem begrenzten Nutzerkreis sind allerdings zugunsten der Anbindung an etablierte Systeme zu vernachlässigen. Diese können einen parallel existierenden Zugang zu den vorhandenen Ressourcen liefern, der seine Stärken in einer explorativen, eher "unscharfen" Recherche entfaltet. Somit wird einem speziellen Bedürfnis der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer Rechnung getragen, dem durch die voraussetzungsreiche Verwendung von präzisen bibliothekarischen Schlagwörtern nicht immer entsprochen werden kann. Bezüglich der inhaltlichen Abdeckung einer Ressource erfüllt das Tagging jedenfalls die Anforderungen eines Recherchesystems, insofern eine ausreichende Mindestanzahl von Tags vorliegt. Natürlich ist es sehr wichtig, die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer ausreichend darüber zu informieren, dass Tagging - wie alle anderen Erschließungsmethoden auch - keine vollständige Abbildung der verfügbaren Ressourcen leistet. Es stellt lediglich einen von verschiedenen Zugangswegen mit spezifischen Besonderheiten und Ergebnissen zur Verfügung. Eine Kombination der Erschließungsverfahren "Fachreferenten", "Tagging" und "automatisch" ist hingegen nur für sehr spezielle Zielsetzungen und als Abfolge von Ergänzungs- und Aktualisierungsschritten sinnvoll. Eine gleichzeitige Integration der Verfahren würde aufgrund ihrer erheblichen Unterschiede eine deutliche Verschlechterung der Erschließungsqualität zur Folge haben. Sinnvoll ist daher eine gleichberechtigte Bereitstellung dieser Zugangswege bei sichtbarer Trennung für die Nutzer. Auf diese Weise können die Vorteile aller Verfahren genutzt werden, ohne sich ihre jeweiligen Nachteile zu eigen zu machen."

0.082726926 = product of:
  0.16545385 = sum of:
    0.16545385 = product of:
      0.49636152 = sum of:
        0.49636152 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.49636152 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4415886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = 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.

0.08019988 = sum of:
  0.055500448 = product of:
    0.16650134 = sum of:
      0.16650134 = weight(_text_:themes in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16650134 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.49721986 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024699433 = product of:
    0.049398866 = sum of:
      0.049398866 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049398866 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.076472655 = product of:
  0.15294531 = sum of:
    0.15294531 = product of:
      0.30589062 = sum of:
        0.30589062 = weight(_text_:taggings in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30589062 = score(doc=4056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.53704107 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = queryNorm
            0.56958514 = fieldWeight in 4056, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Multimodalität ist ein typisches Merkmal der Kommunikation im Social Web. Der Fokus dieses Bandes liegt auf der Kommunikation in Foto-Communitys, insbesondere auf den beiden kommunikativen Praktiken des Social Taggings und des Verfassens von Notizen innerhalb von Bildern. Bei den Tags stehen semantische Text-Bild-Relationen im Vordergrund: Tags dienen der Wissensrepräsentation, eine adäquate Versprachlichung der Bilder ist folglich unabdingbar. Notizen-Bild-Relationen sind aus pragmatischer Perspektive von Interesse: Die Informationen eines Kommunikats werden komplementär auf Text und Bild verteilt, was sich in verschiedenen sprachlichen Phänomenen niederschlägt. Ein diachroner Vergleich mit der Postkartenkommunikation sowie ein Exkurs zur Kommunikation mit Emojis runden das Buch ab.

0.07370637 = sum of:
  0.056063917 = product of:
    0.16819175 = sum of:
      0.16819175 = weight(_text_:themes in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16819175 = score(doc=4696,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.5022679 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4696, 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=4696)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 15th International ISKO Conference has been held in Porto (Portugal) under the topic Challenges and opportunities for KO in the digital age. ISKO has been organizing biennial international conferences since 1990, in order to promote a space for debate among Knowledge Organization (KO) scholars and practitioners all over the world. The topics under discussion in the 15th International ISKO Conference are intended to cover a wide range of issues that, in a very incisive way, constitute challenges, obstacles and questions in the field of KO, but also highlight ways and open innovative perspectives for this area in a world undergoing constant change, due to the digital revolution that unavoidably moulds our society. Accordingly, the three aggregating themes, chosen to fit the proposals for papers and posters to be submitted, are as follows: 1 - Foundations and methods for KO; 2 - Interoperability towards information access; 3 - Societal challenges in KO. In addition to these themes, the inaugural session includes a keynote speech by Prof. David Bawden of City University London, entitled Supporting truth and promoting understanding: knowledge organization and the curation of the infosphere.

Date

17. 1.2019 17:22:18

0.068939105 = product of:
  0.13787821 = sum of:
    0.13787821 = product of:
      0.41363463 = sum of:
        0.41363463 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41363463 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4415886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = 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

0.06874275 = sum of:
  0.047571808 = product of:
    0.14271542 = sum of:
      0.14271542 = weight(_text_:themes in 1414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14271542 = score(doc=1414,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.42618844 = fieldWeight in 1414, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1414)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.021170942 = product of:
    0.042341884 = sum of:
      0.042341884 = weight(_text_:22 in 1414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042341884 = score(doc=1414,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1414, 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=1414)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Marc Bloch's famous methodological essay, The Historian's Craft, contains many relevant considerations on knowledge organization. These have been selected and grouped into four main themes: terminology problems in history; principles for the organization of historical knowledge, with special reference to the genetic principle; sources of historical information, to be found not only in archives but also in very different media and contexts; and the nature and boundaries of history as a discipline. Analysis of them shows that knowledge organization is an important part of historians' work, and suggests that it can be especially fruitful when a cross-medial, interdisciplinary approach is adopted.

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

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4130, 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=4130)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The mapping of scientific fields, based on principles established in the seventies, has recently shown a remarkable development and applications are now booming with progress in computing efficiency. We examine here the convergence of two thematic mapping approaches, citation-based and word-based, which rely on quite different sociological backgrounds. A corpus in the nanoscience field was broken down into research themes, using the same clustering technique on the 2 networks separately. The tool for comparison is the table of intersections of the M clusters (here M=50) built on either side. A classical visual exploitation of such contingency tables is based on correspondence analysis. We investigate a rearrangement of the intersection table (block modeling), resulting in pseudo-map. The interest of this representation for confronting the two breakdowns is discussed. The amount of convergence found is, in our view, a strong argument in favor of the reliability of bibliometric mapping. However, the outcomes are not convergent at the degree where they can be substituted for each other. Differences highlight the complementarity between approaches based on different networks. In contrast with the strong informetric posture found in recent literature, where lexical and citation markers are considered as miscible tokens, the framework proposed here does not mix the two elements at an early stage, in compliance with their contrasted logic.

Date

8. 1.2011 18:22:50

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 1374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=1374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 1374, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1374)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 1374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=1374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1374, 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=1374)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents the final phase of a research project that aims to develop a bilingual taxonomy (English and French) for the indexing of ordinary digital images. The objective of this last stage was to ask a representative sample of image searchers to complete retrieval tasks of images indexed using the new taxonomy TIIARA to measure its degree of effectiveness and efficiency. During this experiment, a sample of 60 participants were asked to indicate where in the taxonomic structure they thought they would find each one of the 30 images shown. Respondents also completed a questionnaire intended to obtain their general opinion on TIIARA and to report any difficulties encountered during the retrieval process. The quantitative data was analyzed according to statistical methods, while the content of the open-ended questions was analyzed and coded to identify emergent themes. The findings of this ultimate phase of the research project indicated that, despite the fact that some categories still need further refining, TIIARA already constitutes a successful tool that provides access to ordinary images. Furthermore, the bilingual taxonomy constitutes a definite benefit for image searchers who are not very familiar with images indexed in English, which is still the dominant language of the Web.

Date

3. 9.2014 19:22:07

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 1433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=1433,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 1433, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1433)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 1433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=1433,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1433, 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=1433)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A taxonomy is being developed to organize the content of a cultural heritage portal called Singapore Memory Portal, that provides access to a collection of memory postings about Singapore's history, culture, society, life/lifestyle and landscape/architecture. The taxonomy is divided into an upper-level taxonomy to support user browsing of topics, and a lower-level taxonomy to represent the types of information available on specific topics, to support user learning and information synthesis. The initial version of the upper-level taxonomy was developed based on potential users' expectations of the content coverage of the portal. The categories are centered on the themes of daily life/lifestyle, historically significant events, disasters and crises, festivals, a variety of cultural elements and national issues. The lower-level taxonomy was derived from attributes and relations extracted from essays and mindmaps produced by coders after reading memory postings for a sample of topics.

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

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research study that examined professional image users' knowledge of, and interest in using, content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems in an attempt to clarify when and where CBIR methods might be applied. The research sought to determine the differences in the perceived usefulness of CBIR technologies among image user groups from several domains and explicate the reasons given regarding the utility of CBIR systems for their professional tasks. Twenty participants (archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists), individuals who rely on images of cultural materials in the performance of their work, took part in the study. The findings of the study reveal that interest in CBIR methods varied among the different professional user communities. Individuals who showed an interest in these systems were primarily those concerned with the formal characteristics (i.e., color, shape, composition, and texture) of the images being sought. In contrast, those participants who expressed a strong interest in images of known items, images illustrating themes, and/or items from specific locations believe concept-based searches to be the most direct route. These image users did not see a practical application for CBIR systems in their current work routines.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=3200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 3200, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3200)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=3200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3200, 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=3200)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper builds on the findings of a workshop held at the 2015 International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPRES), entitled, "Using Open-Source Tools to Fulfill Digital Preservation Requirements" (OSS4PRES hereafter). This day-long workshop brought together participants from across the library and archives community, including practitioners proprietary vendors, and representatives from open-source projects. The resulting conversations were surprisingly revealing: while OSS' significance within the preservation landscape was made clear, participants noted that there are a number of roadblocks that discourage or altogether prevent its use in many organizations. Overcoming these challenges will be necessary to further widespread, sustainable OSS adoption within the digital preservation community. This article will mine the rich discussions that took place at OSS4PRES to (1) summarize the workshop's key themes and major points of debate, (2) provide a comprehensive analysis of the opportunities, gaps, and challenges that using OSS entails at a philosophical, institutional, and individual level, and (3) offer a tangible set of recommendations for future work designed to broaden community engagement and enhance the sustainability of open source initiatives, drawing on both participants' experience as well as additional research.

Date

28.10.2016 18:22:33

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4054, 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=4054)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine researchers' motivations to publish by comparing different career stages (PhD students; temporarily employed postdocs/new professors; scholars with permanent employment) with regard to epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motives. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative analysis is mainly based on semi-structured narrative interviews with 91 researchers in the humanities, social, and natural sciences, based at six renowned (anonymous) universities in Germany, the UK, and the USA. These narratives contain answers to the direct question "why do you publish?" as well as remarks on motivations to publish in relation to other questions and themes. The interdisciplinary interpretation is based on both sociological science studies and philosophy of science in practice. Findings At each career stage, epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motivations to publish are weighed differently. Confirming earlier studies, the authors find that PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in temporary positions mainly feel pressured to publish for career-related reasons. However, across status groups, researchers also want to publish in order to support collective knowledge generation. Research limitations/implications The sample of interviewees may be biased toward those interested in reflecting on their day-to-day work. Social implications Continuous and collective reflection is imperative for preventing uncritical internalization of pragmatic reasons to publish. Creating occasions for reflection is a task not only of researchers themselves, but also of administrators, funders, and other stakeholders. Originality/value Most studies have illuminated how researchers publish while adapting to or growing into the contemporary publish-or-perish culture. This paper addresses the rarely asked question why researchers publish at all.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.05728563 = sum of:
  0.039643176 = product of:
    0.11892952 = sum of:
      0.11892952 = weight(_text_:themes in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11892952 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017642453 = product of:
    0.035284907 = sum of:
      0.035284907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035284907 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.048257377 = product of:
  0.096514754 = sum of:
    0.096514754 = product of:
      0.28954425 = sum of:
        0.28954425 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28954425 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4415886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.04521536 = sum of:
  0.027750224 = product of:
    0.08325067 = sum of:
      0.08325067 = weight(_text_:themes in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08325067 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33486462 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.24860993 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017465137 = product of:
    0.034930274 = sum of:
      0.034930274 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034930274 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18239751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052086346 = queryNorm
          0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The MTSR 2013 program and the contents of these proceedings show a rich diversity of research and practices, drawing on problems from metadata and semantically focused tools and technologies, linked data, cross-language semantics, ontologies, metadata models, and semantic system and metadata standards. The general session of the conference included 18 papers covering a broad spectrum of topics, proving the interdisciplinary field of metadata, and was divided into three main themes: platforms for research data sets, system architecture and data management; metadata and ontology validation, evaluation, mapping and interoperability; and content management. Metadata as a research topic is maturing, and the conference also supported the following five tracks: Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures; Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications; Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment; Big Data and Digital Libraries in Health, Science and Technology; and European and National Projects, and Project Networking. Each track had a rich selection of papers, giving broader diversity to MTSR, and enabling deeper exploration of significant topics.

Date

17.12.2013 12:51:22

0.041363463 = product of:
  0.082726926 = sum of:
    0.082726926 = product of:
      0.24818076 = sum of:
        0.24818076 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24818076 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4415886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.041363463 = product of:
  0.082726926 = sum of:
    0.082726926 = product of:
      0.24818076 = sum of:
        0.24818076 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24818076 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4415886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052086346 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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