Search (4230 results, page 2 of 212)

0.06845674 = product of:
  0.13691348 = sum of:
    0.13691348 = sum of:
      0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09438516 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.042528324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042528324 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2226, 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=2226)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Venice University Institute of Architecture has developed Easyweb, a software package to integrate its heterogeneous non-compatible bibliographic and multimedia databases, standardise access and create internal links, by transferring all existing OPAC applications to the Web. Features include importation of UNIMARC data, multiple window searching, multibase searching and special applications, e.g. circulation management. Easyweb is notable user friendly and has become the point of reference for OPACs in Italy

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1998, no.178, S.20-22

0.06845674 = product of:
  0.13691348 = sum of:
    0.13691348 = sum of:
      0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09438516 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
      0.042528324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042528324 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2453, 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=2453)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An awareness exists among Italian librarians of the need for an established code of ethics for library reference services. Considers the principles that such a code should incorporate; the US Commitment to Information services, for example, affirms users' rights of access to library books and resources, regardless of content and opinions expressed. Censoship is opposed and people are not barred from library use for ethnis, social or religious reasons. An ethical code would require library staff to be impartial, give attention and respect to users, allocate time properly, and avoid prejudice. Discusses the problems of library ethics which arise when user requests relate to sensitive topics e.g. euthansia, cocaine refining

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

0.06845674 = product of:
  0.13691348 = sum of:
    0.13691348 = sum of:
      0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09438516 = score(doc=2980,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 2980, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2980)
      0.042528324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042528324 = score(doc=2980,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2980, 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=2980)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users who want to exploit all the information sources on the Web will need an efficient search and selection tool e.g. a directory or search engine. Directories list Web sites and analyze their contents. Describes the behind-the-scenes work of documentalists specialized in surfing, tracking and indexing French language sites for the directory Nomade. Describes the creation of Nomade, its functioning and indexing, and how this new profession of 'cyber-documentalist' is changing the practices and functions of information professionals as they become Internet information organizers

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.06845674 = product of:
  0.13691348 = sum of:
    0.13691348 = sum of:
      0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09438516 = score(doc=3288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
      0.042528324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042528324 = score(doc=3288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3288, 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=3288)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Analyses the factors to consider in deciding what and why to digitize visual materials, given the desire in a library to create such a project, e.g. the purpose might be preservation, reference access or remote access and there might be other means of attaining it. Suggests questions to be posed in selecting materials for imaging, assessing resolution and format requirements, deciding who should carry out the work of digitizing, how to manage the digital files, how to provide user access and whether to collaborate with the private sector. Predicts what advantages might be expected in image capture and access

Source

Collection management. 22(1998) nos.3/4, S.123-132

0.06741798 = product of:
  0.13483596 = sum of:
    0.13483596 = product of:
      0.26967192 = sum of:
        0.26967192 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26967192 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.1527703 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06741798 = product of:
  0.13483596 = sum of:
    0.13483596 = product of:
      0.26967192 = sum of:
        0.26967192 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26967192 = score(doc=2260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.1527703 = fieldWeight in 2260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06608532 = product of:
  0.13217065 = sum of:
    0.13217065 = sum of:
      0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10786875 = score(doc=292,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.0243019 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0243019 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 292, 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=292)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Browsing is considered to be unstructured and human-driven, although not a cognitively intensive process. It is conducted using systems that facilitate considerable user-system interactivity. Cued by the content, people immerse themselves in a topic of interest and meander from topic to topic while concurrently recognising interesting and informative information en route. They seem to seek and gather information in a purposeless, illogical and indiscriminate manner. Typical examples of these ostensibly random acts are scanning a non-fiction book, examining the morning newspaper, perusing the contents of a business report and scavenging the World Wide Web. Often the result is the acquisition of new information, the rejection or confirmation of an idea, or the genesis of new, perhaps not-wholly-formed thoughts about a topic. Noteworthy about this approach is that people explore information without having consciously structured queries or explicit goals. This form of passive information interaction behaviour is defined as acquiring and gathering information while scanning an information space without a specific goal in mind (Waterworth & Chignell, 1991; Toms, 1997), and for the purposes of this study, is called browsing. Traditionally, browsing is thought of in two ways: as a physical process - the action taken when one scans a list, a document, or a set of linked information nodes (e.g., Fox & Palay, 1979; Thompson & Croft, 1989; Ellis, 1989), and as a conceptual process, information seeking when the goal is ill-defined (e.g., Cove & Walsh, 1987). Browsing is also combined with searching in an integrated information-seeking process for retrieving information (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Belkin, Marchetti & Cool, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Chang, 1995). Each of these cases focuses primarily on seeking information when the objective ranges from fuzzy to explicit.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:44:47

0.06286039 = product of:
  0.12572078 = sum of:
    0.12572078 = sum of:
      0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09534341 = score(doc=994,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.060144138 = product of:
  0.120288275 = sum of:
    0.120288275 = product of:
      0.24057655 = sum of:
        0.24057655 = weight(_text_:22 in 219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24057655 = score(doc=219,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 219, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.060144138 = product of:
  0.120288275 = sum of:
    0.120288275 = product of:
      0.24057655 = sum of:
        0.24057655 = weight(_text_:22 in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24057655 = score(doc=1386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.060144138 = product of:
  0.120288275 = sum of:
    0.120288275 = product of:
      0.24057655 = sum of:
        0.24057655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24057655 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 2102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.059701826 = sum of:
  0.04451314 = product of:
    0.17805256 = sum of:
      0.17805256 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17805256 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38017118 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0151886875 = product of:
    0.030377375 = sum of:
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2885, 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=2885)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2885, 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=2885)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Attention is drawn to the inadequacies of the existing classification schemes as pointed out by individuals and groups concerned with classification research. The article is based on an earlier study by the author, which identified and arranged in a filiatory way the main concepts of sociology and determined their relative significance as headings in a classification scheme. The sociology schedule in the DDC was examined on the basis of 9 evaluation criteria, as e.g. arrangement of major categories, provision for main concepts, use of phrased headings instead of individual key terms, and scattering of related concepts in the schedule. It was found that a large number of the main concepts of sociology are either not represented in the schedule or mentioned in the scope note only along with the main headings. A table shows 100 main concepts of sociology arranged and classified within 10 major categories or sections, and their provision in the DDC. The study suggests that the DDC needs serious reconsideration with regard to the main headings/categories provided as class headings, terminology used for the concepts, the filiatory structure adopted, and the representation of the main concepts of sociology

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) nos.3/4, S.148-158

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 3049, 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=3049)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3049, 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=3049)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors are students of librarianship in the faculty of philosophy at Ljubljana University, Slovenia. Users were asked to describe their library visits and summarise what was most helpful and least helpful about the service received. In the list of best practices, the most frequent feature was that the staff member really listened (58,9%). Other aspects of most helpful behaviour (e.g. using different body language, showing genuine interest, willingness to investigate further) occured in less than 40% of the interviews. 3 features of least helpful behaviour were listed in more than 30% of the cases; not asking the user anything about the question and making no effort to determine the specific need, not telling the user what he/she was doing, making no effort to determine whether the user had found the relevant information

Date

22. 2.1999 19:29:43

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 5279, 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=5279)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5279, 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=5279)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications are rapidly gaining acceptance among users of Internet-based services, especially because of their capability of exchanging resources while preserving the anonymity of both requesters and providers. However, concerns have been raised about the possibility that malicious users can exploit the network to spread tampered-with resources (e.g., malicious programs and viruses). A considerable amount of research has thus focused on the development of trust and reputation models in P2P networks. In this article, we propose to use fuzzy techniques in the design of reputation systems based on collecting and aggregating peers' opinions. Fuzzy techniques are used in the evaluation and synthesis of all the opinions expressed by peers. The behavior of the proposed system is described by comparison with probabilistic approaches.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:06:18

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The disintermediation that will inevitably result from the increased electronic publication of specialized scholarly information affords an excellent opportunity for one of the traditional intermediaries (e.g., libraries, publishers) to assume responsibilities previously held by other intermediaries. Members of the academy should use this opportunity to take back the responsibility for a significant portion of the specialized scholarly publishing that has, in the traditional environment, been placed in the hands of external publishers. The most imposing impediment to such a reappropriation by the academy derives from the inability of institutions to cooperate with each other. If new attitudes could be created within the academy to circumvent that obstruction, then an academy-based process of scholarly information exchange would finally be feasible. One effective model for such a new form of scholarly publishing would be to establish separate domains, or designated channels, for individual disciplines.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2420, 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=2420)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2420, 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=2420)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The German information science community - with the support of the two main funding agencies in Germany - will develop a scientific portal, vascoda, for cross-searching distributed metadata collections. In platitudinous words, one of the services of vascoda is going to be a ldquoGooglerdquo-like search for the academic community, an easy to use, yet sophisticated search-engine to supply information on high-quality resources from different media and technical environments. Reaching this objective requires considerable standardisation activity amongst the main players to harmonise the already existing services (e.g. regarding metadata, protocols, etc.). The co-operation amongst the participants including both of the funding agencies is creating a unique team-work situation in Germany thus strengthening the information science community.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.05867721 = product of:
  0.11735442 = sum of:
    0.11735442 = sum of:
      0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08090157 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2741, 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=2741)
      0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03645285 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2741, 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=2741)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Authorship attribution supported by statistical or computational methods has a long history starting from the 19th century and is marked by the seminal study of Mosteller and Wallace (1964) on the authorship of the disputed Federalist Papers. During the last decade, this scientific field has been developed substantially, taking advantage of research advances in areas such as machine learning, information retrieval, and natural language processing. The plethora of available electronic texts (e.g., e-mail messages, online forum messages, blogs, source code, etc.) indicates a wide variety of applications of this technology, provided it is able to handle short and noisy text from multiple candidate authors. In this article, a survey of recent advances of the automated approaches to attributing authorship is presented, examining their characteristics for both text representation and text classification. The focus of this survey is on computational requirements and settings rather than on linguistic or literary issues. We also discuss evaluation methodologies and criteria for authorship attribution studies and list open questions that will attract future work in this area.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:44:32

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