Search (843 results, page 1 of 43)

0.12347858 = sum of:
  0.053415764 = product of:
    0.21366306 = sum of:
      0.21366306 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21366306 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.070062816 = product of:
    0.14012563 = sum of:
      0.14012563 = weight(_text_:e.g in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14012563 = score(doc=400,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.598997 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, 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.

0.07543247 = product of:
  0.15086494 = sum of:
    0.15086494 = sum of:
      0.1144121 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1144121 = score(doc=4560,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.489079 = fieldWeight in 4560, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4560)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=4560,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4560, 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=4560)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, several procedures (e.g., measurements, information retrieval analyses, power law, association rules, hierarchical clustering) are introduced which were made on a pilot digital library. Information retrievals of web users from 01/01/2003 to 01/01/2006 on the internal search engine of the pilot digital library have been analyzed. With the power law method of data processing, a constant information retrieval pattern has been established, stable over a longer period of time. After this, the data have been analyzed. On the basis of the accomplished measurements and analyses, a series of mental models of web users for global (educational) purposes have been developed (e.g., the metamodel of thought hierarchy of web users, the segmentation model of web users), and the users were profiled in four different groups (adventurers, observers, applicable, and know-alls). The article concludes with the construction of a new knowledge management solution called multidimensional rank thesaurus.

Date

13. 7.2011 14:47:22

0.07543247 = product of:
  0.15086494 = sum of:
    0.15086494 = sum of:
      0.1144121 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1144121 = score(doc=1415,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.489079 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

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

0.073574364 = product of:
  0.14714873 = sum of:
    0.14714873 = sum of:
      0.116771355 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.116771355 = score(doc=4637,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.49916416 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4637, 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=4637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined. Findings The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines. Originality/value The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06915175 = product of:
  0.1383035 = sum of:
    0.1383035 = sum of:
      0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09534341 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.042960096 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042960096 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).

Date

22. 9.2014 19:01:18

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

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 3737, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3737)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, 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=3737)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative currently defines a Dublin Core Application Profile as a set of specifications about the metadata design of a particular application or for a particular domain or community of users. The current approach to application profiles is summarized in the Singapore Framework for Application Profiles [SINGAPORE-FRAMEWORK] (see Figure 1). While the approach originally developed as a means of specifying customized applications based on the fifteen elements of the Dublin Core Element Set (e.g., Title, Date, Subject), it has evolved into a generic approach to creating metadata that meets specific local requirements while integrating coherently with other RDF-based metadata.

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 1406, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1406)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1406, 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=1406)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the paper I argue that metaphors widely used in presenting knowledge organization, despite of their methodological correctness, play an ambiguous role. They are mostly conceived and used as models of information/knowledge organization such as library documents, databases and internet tools and devices. But due to their suggestive power and pervasive role, they can also obscure the structure of such organization. One can expect explanatory (descriptive) benefits from spatial (e.g. terrestrial or aquatic) metaphors comparing modes of organizing and accessing knowledge to oceans, pathways networks or even rhizomes. But mapping or metaphorically presenting cognitive undertakings such as searching, browsing or retrieving information/knowledge can obscure their actual essence. As held by the cognitive theory of metaphor (Lakoff, Johnson, Ritchie), certain aspects of complex phenomena (i.e. knowledge organization) are repeatedly obscured and hidden. I argue that metaphors containing probability concepts, although not immediately intuitive or comprehensible, are more fruitful effective in mapping knowledge organization.

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

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=1439,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=1439,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1439, 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=1439)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to explore the basics of selected present-day terminology theories and approaches, and to show their potential for knowledge organization and representation. The approach is rooted in the descriptive and comparative framework. In particular, socioterminology, communicative theory of terminology and sociocognitive approach as well as the concept theories formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg and Birger Hjørland are investigated. In the aspect of KOSs optimization, the sociocognitive approach appears particularly interesting. It also corresponds with Hjørland's knowledge domain analysis. We should forget about devising universalistic systems for everybody, and build consistent KOSs instead which would be a picture of communication in various discourse communities. This suggestion is not new, but the tools that would help to accomplish it are new. These tools originate both from present-day terminology and information technologies (e.g. engineering ontologies).

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

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2639, 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=2639)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Online communities are becoming an important tool in the communication and participation processes in our society. However, the most widespread applications are difficult to use for people with disabilities, or may involve some risks if no previous training has been undertaken. This work describes a novel social network for cognitively disabled people along with a clustering-based method for modeling activity and socialization processes of its users in a noninvasive way. This closed social network is specifically designed for people with cognitive disabilities, called Guremintza, that provides the network administrators (e.g., social workers) with two types of reports: summary statistics of the network usage and behavior patterns discovered by a data mining process. Experiments made in an initial stage of the network show that the discovered patterns are meaningful to the social workers and they find them useful in monitoring the progress of the users.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:02:26

0.055189036 = product of:
  0.11037807 = sum of:
    0.11037807 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.042960096 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042960096 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

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

0.053415764 = product of:
  0.10683153 = sum of:
    0.10683153 = product of:
      0.4273261 = sum of:
        0.4273261 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4273261 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.050288316 = product of:
  0.10057663 = sum of:
    0.10057663 = sum of:
      0.07627473 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07627473 = score(doc=1450,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.32605267 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.0243019 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0243019 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.

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

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, 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=4195)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=1408,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 1408, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1408)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=1408,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1408, 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=1408)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The categorial approach was formulated by Ranganathan in the 1930s in his Colon Classification and its conceptual and theoretical basis was laid down in his Prolegomena. This view influenced significantly the search for a new approach to knowledge organization that would overcome the rigidity and limitations of enumerative models. The categorical approach or the facet-analytical approach has since become the single most predominant approach in knowledge organization leading to the development of a number of special classification schemes for micro-subjects, new general classification schemes such as BSO (and revision of existing schemes, e.g. BC2), indexing systems such as PRECIS and POPSI, revision and / or development of controlled vocabularies to conform to the faceted approach, emergence of new tools such as the Thesaurofacet and Classaurus, and in recent years, facet analysis has even been used in website design. This paper explores some schemas and raises a few questions as to the relevance of these in the digital environment.

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

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=1495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 1495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1495)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=1495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1495, 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=1495)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

People who are collaborating can share files in two main ways: performing Group Information Management (GIM) using a common repository or performing Personal Information Management (PIM) by distributing files as e-mail attachments and storing them in personal repositories. There is a trend toward using common repositories with many organizations encouraging workers to use GIM to avoid duplication of files and management. So far, PIM and GIM have been studied by different research communities, so their effectiveness for file retrieval has not yet been systematically compared. We compared PIM and GIM in a large-scale elicited personal information retrieval study. We asked 275 users to retrieve 860 of their own shared files, testing the effect of sharing method on success and efficiency of retrieval. Participants preferred PIM over GIM. More important, PIM retrieval was more successful: Participants using GIM failed to find 22% of their files compared with 13% failures using PIM. This may be because active organization aids retrieval: When using personally created folders, the failure percentage was 65% lower than when using default folders (e.g., My Documents), and more than 5 times lower than when using folders created by others for GIM. Theoretical reasons for this are discussed.

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 1903, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1903)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1903, 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=1903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Teaching cataloguing requires the instructor to make strategic decisions about how to approach the variety and complexity of the field and to provide an adequate theoretical foundation while preparing students for their entry into the world of practice. Accompanying these challenges are the tactical demands of providing this instruction in a distance education environment. Rather than focusing on ways to support learners in catalogue record production, instructors may use a problem solving and decision making approach to instruction. In this paper, a way to conceptualize a decision making approach that builds on a foundation provided by theories of information navigation is described. This approach, which is called "wayfinding", teaches by having students learn to find their way in the sets of rules that are commonly used. The method focuses on instruction about the structural features of rule sets, providing basic definitions of what each of the "places" in the rule sets contain (e.g., "formatting personal names" in Chapter 22 of AACR2R) and about ways to navigate those structures, enabling students to learn not only about common rules but also about less well known cataloguing practices ("dragons"). It provides both pragmatic and pedagogical benefits and helps develop links between cataloguing practices and their theoretical foundations.

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Nuovo Soggettario is a subject indexing system edited by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. It was presented to librarians from across Italy on 8 February 2007 in Florence as a new edition of the Soggettario (1956), and it has become the official Italian subject indexing tool. This system is made up of two individual and interactive components: the general thesaurus, accessible on the web since 2007 and the rules of a conventional syntax for the construction of subject strings. The Nuovo soggettario thesaurus has grown significantly in terms of terminology and connections with other knowledge organization tools (e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, resources of archives and museums, and other information data sets), offering the users the possibility to browse through documents, books, objects, photographs, etc. The conversion of the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus into formats suitable for the semantic web and linked data world improves its function as an interlinking hub for direct searching and for organizing content by different professional communities. Thanks to structured data and the SKOS format, the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus is published on the Data Hub platform, thus giving broad visibility to the BNCF and its precious patrimony.

Content

Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.