-
Alcaraz-García, I.; Bueno-de-la-Fuente, G.: Best practices for current learning repositories : the case of agrega (2014)
0.19
0.18915713 = sum of:
0.17061016 = product of:
0.39809036 = sum of:
0.048561636 = weight(_text_:de in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048561636 = score(doc=1585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
0.081965476 = weight(_text_:la in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081965476 = score(doc=1585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22145785 = queryWeight, product of:
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.37011772 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
0.26756325 = weight(_text_:fuente in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.26756325 = score(doc=1585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.40011868 = queryWeight, product of:
10.087449 = idf(docFreq=4, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.6687097 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
10.087449 = idf(docFreq=4, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
0.018546961 = product of:
0.037093922 = sum of:
0.037093922 = weight(_text_:g in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037093922 = score(doc=1585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Roth, G.; Gerhardt, V.; Flaßpöhler, S.: Wie flexibel ist mein Ich? : Dialog (2012)
0.09
0.09234076 = sum of:
0.011446088 = product of:
0.08012261 = sum of:
0.08012261 = weight(_text_:de in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08012261 = score(doc=955,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.47003788 = fieldWeight in 955, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=955)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.08089467 = sum of:
0.043276247 = weight(_text_:g in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043276247 = score(doc=955,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 955, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=955)
0.037618425 = weight(_text_:22 in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037618425 = score(doc=955,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 955, 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=955)
- Date
- 7. 5.2023 11:14:22
- Source
- Philosophie-Magazin [https://www.philomag.de/artikel/wie-flexibel-ist-mein-ich-gerhard-roth?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE]
-
Xiao, G.: ¬A knowledge classification model based on the relationship between science and human needs (2013)
0.07
0.069338284 = product of:
0.13867657 = sum of:
0.13867657 = sum of:
0.074187845 = weight(_text_:g in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074187845 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
0.064488724 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064488724 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.2013 12:36:34
-
Antos, G.: Wie Sprache Entscheidungen (vor)prägt : zum Einfluss und zur Rhetorik kollektiver Selbsttäuschungen (2014)
0.07
0.069338284 = product of:
0.13867657 = sum of:
0.13867657 = sum of:
0.074187845 = weight(_text_:g in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074187845 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
0.064488724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064488724 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1489, 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=1489)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 7.2014 18:22:33
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.06
0.06356306 = sum of:
0.005781148 = product of:
0.040468033 = sum of:
0.040468033 = weight(_text_:de in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040468033 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.057781905 = sum of:
0.030911604 = weight(_text_:g in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030911604 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.026870303 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026870303 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
- Abstract
- A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Baião Salgado Silva, G.; Lima, G.Â. Borém de Oliveira: Using topic maps in establishing compatibility of semantically structured hypertext contents (2012)
0.06
0.06356306 = sum of:
0.005781148 = product of:
0.040468033 = sum of:
0.040468033 = weight(_text_:de in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040468033 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.057781905 = sum of:
0.030911604 = weight(_text_:g in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030911604 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
0.026870303 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026870303 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
- Date
- 22. 2.2013 11:39:23
-
Moneda Corrochano, M. de la; López-Huertas, M.J.; Jiménez-Contreras, E.: Spanish research in knowledge organization (2002-2010) (2013)
0.06
0.06231825 = sum of:
0.04350904 = product of:
0.15228163 = sum of:
0.056655243 = weight(_text_:de in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056655243 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
0.095626384 = weight(_text_:la in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.095626384 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22145785 = queryWeight, product of:
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.431804 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
0.018809212 = product of:
0.037618425 = sum of:
0.037618425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037618425 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, 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=3363)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.2013 12:10:07
-
Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' " (2013)
0.06
0.058853563 = sum of:
0.016021188 = product of:
0.11214831 = sum of:
0.11214831 = weight(_text_:de in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11214831 = score(doc=1052,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.657916 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.042832375 = product of:
0.08566475 = sum of:
0.08566475 = weight(_text_:g in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08566475 = score(doc=1052,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure?. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2290-2293.
- Object
- g-index
-
Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013)
0.06
0.0587084 = sum of:
0.009249836 = product of:
0.06474885 = sum of:
0.06474885 = weight(_text_:de in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06474885 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.049458563 = product of:
0.09891713 = sum of:
0.09891713 = weight(_text_:g in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09891713 = score(doc=1113,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.663964 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
- Object
- g-index
-
Vosgerau, G.: Sprache und Denken (2011)
0.06
0.057781905 = product of:
0.11556381 = sum of:
0.11556381 = sum of:
0.061823208 = weight(_text_:g in 3823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061823208 = score(doc=3823,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.4149775 = fieldWeight in 3823, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3823)
0.053740606 = weight(_text_:22 in 3823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053740606 = score(doc=3823,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3823, 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=3823)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 23. 7.2011 13:13:22
-
Egghe, L.: Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, "what does the g-index really measure?" (2012)
0.05
0.051496867 = sum of:
0.014018538 = product of:
0.098129764 = sum of:
0.098129764 = weight(_text_:de in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098129764 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.5756765 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.037478328 = product of:
0.074956656 = sum of:
0.074956656 = weight(_text_:g in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074956656 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.5031335 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.
- Object
- g-index
-
Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011)
0.05
0.050905447 = sum of:
0.010013242 = product of:
0.07009269 = sum of:
0.07009269 = weight(_text_:de in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07009269 = score(doc=1053,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.4111975 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.040892206 = product of:
0.08178441 = sum of:
0.08178441 = weight(_text_:g in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08178441 = score(doc=1053,freq=14.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It was argued recently that the g-index is a measure of a researcher's specific impact (i.e., impact per paper) as much as it is a measure of overall impact. While this is true for the productive "core" of publications, it can be argued that the g-index does not differ from the square root of the total number of citations in a bibliometrically meaningful way when the entire publication list is considered. The R-index also has a tendency to follow total impact, leaving only the A-index as a true measure of specific impact. The main difference between the g-index and the h-index is that the former penalizes consistency of impact whereas the latter rewards such consistency. It is concluded that the h-index is a better bibliometric tool than is the g-index, and that the square root of the total number of citations is a convenient measure of a researcher's overall impact.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.
- Object
- g-index
-
Vom Buch zur Datenbank : Paul Otlets Utopie der Wissensvisualisierung (2012)
0.05
0.049302295 = sum of:
0.035867143 = product of:
0.125535 = sum of:
0.05723044 = weight(_text_:de in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05723044 = score(doc=3074,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.33574134 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
0.06830456 = weight(_text_:la in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06830456 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22145785 = queryWeight, product of:
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.30843142 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.583205 = idf(docFreq=451, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
0.013435151 = product of:
0.026870303 = sum of:
0.026870303 = weight(_text_:22 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026870303 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3074, 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=3074)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts geriet das Dokumentationswesen in eine Krise: wie lässt sich das kulturelle Wissen nachhaltiger organisieren? Paul Otlet (1868-1944), ein belgischer Industriellenerbe und studierter Rechtsanwalt, entwickelte zusammen mit Henri La Fontaine ab 1895 ein Ordnungs- und Klassifikationssystem, das das millionenfach publizierte "Weltwissen" dokumentieren sollte. Otlets Anspruch war die Schaffung eines "Instrument d'ubiquité", das zur "Hyper-Intelligence" führen sollte. Jahrzehnte vor Web und Wikis weisen diese Ideen auf eine globale Vernetzung des Wissens hin. Der vorliegende Titel erinnert an den Pionier Paul Otlet mit einer ausführlichen Einleitung von Frank Hartmann (Bauhaus-Universität Weimar), Beiträgen von W. Boyd Rayward (University of Illinois), Charles van den Heuvel (Königlich Niederländische Akademie der Wissenschaften) und Wouter Van Acker (Universität Gent).
- Date
- 22. 8.2016 16:06:54
- LCSH
- Mons <Hennegau> / Office International de Bibliographie
- Subject
- Mons <Hennegau> / Office International de Bibliographie
-
Junger, U.: Basisinformationen zur Universellen Dezimalklassifikation (UDK) (2018)
0.05
0.046225525 = product of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.049458563 = weight(_text_:g in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049458563 = score(doc=4337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
0.042992484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042992484 = score(doc=4337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 7.2018 17:22:00
- Source
- Klassifikationen in Bibliotheken: Theorie - Anwendung - Nutzen. Hrsg.: H. Alex, G. Bee u. U. Junger
-
Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018)
0.05
0.046225525 = product of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.049458563 = weight(_text_:g in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049458563 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
0.042992484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042992484 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.1-22
- Source
- Klassifikationen in Bibliotheken: Theorie - Anwendung - Nutzen. Hrsg.: H. Alex, G. Bee u. U. Junger
-
Berti, Jr., D.W.; Lima, G.; Maculan, B.; Soergel, D.: Computer-assisted checking of conceptual relationships in a large thesaurus (2018)
0.05
0.046225525 = product of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.09245105 = sum of:
0.049458563 = weight(_text_:g in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049458563 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
0.042992484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042992484 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17. 1.2019 19:04:22
-
Castro, A. de: Mental models may fail when faced with self-referential descriptors (2016)
0.05
0.046119116 = sum of:
0.013874754 = product of:
0.09712327 = sum of:
0.09712327 = weight(_text_:de in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09712327 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.56977195 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.032244362 = product of:
0.064488724 = sum of:
0.064488724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064488724 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2485, 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=2485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:45:01
-
Silva Saldanha, G.; Christofoletti Silveira, N.; Crippa, G.; Almeida, T. de: Who is Tesauro? : The man, words and things (2018)
0.04
0.04422232 = sum of:
0.009249836 = product of:
0.06474885 = sum of:
0.06474885 = weight(_text_:de in 4786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06474885 = score(doc=4786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17045991 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 4786, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4786)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
0.034972485 = product of:
0.06994497 = sum of:
0.06994497 = weight(_text_:g in 4786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06994497 = score(doc=4786,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.46949342 = fieldWeight in 4786, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4786)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Taylor, A.G.: Implementing AACR and AACR2 : a personal perspective and lessons learned (2012)
0.04
0.040447336 = product of:
0.08089467 = sum of:
0.08089467 = sum of:
0.043276247 = weight(_text_:g in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043276247 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
0.037618425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037618425 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.04
0.040447336 = product of:
0.08089467 = sum of:
0.08089467 = sum of:
0.043276247 = weight(_text_:g in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043276247 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14897966 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = queryNorm
0.29048425 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
0.037618425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037618425 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13890009 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.039665002 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
