Search (149 results, page 8 of 8)

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 1260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=1260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 1260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Flexible organization of information is one of the key design challenges in any digital library. For the past year, we have been working with members of the National Digital Library Project (NDLP) at the Library of Congress to build an experimental system to organize and store library collections. This is a report on the work. In particular, we describe how a few technical building blocks are used to organize the material in collections, such as the NDLP's, and how these methods fit into a general distributed computing framework. The technical building blocks are part of a framework that evolved as part of the Computer Science Technical Reports Project (CSTR). This framework is described in the paper, "A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services", by Robert Kahn and Robert Wilensky (1995). The main building blocks are: "digital objects", which are used to manage digital material in a networked environment; "handles", which identify digital objects and other network resources; and "repositories", in which digital objects are stored. These concepts are amplified in "Key Concepts in the Architecture of the Digital Library", by William Y. Arms (1995). In summer 1995, after earlier experimental development, work began on the implementation of a full digital library system based on this framework. In addition to Kahn/Wilensky and Arms, several working papers further elaborate on the design concepts. A paper by Carl Lagoze and David Ely, "Implementation Issues in an Open Architectural Framework for Digital Object Services", delves into some of the repository concepts. The initial repository implementation was based on a paper by Carl Lagoze, Robert McGrath, Ed Overly and Nancy Yeager, "A Design for Inter-Operable Secure Object Stores (ISOS)". Work on the handle system, which began in 1992, is described in a series of papers that can be found on the Handle Home Page. The National Digital Library Program (NDLP) at the Library of Congress is a large scale project to convert historic collections to digital form and make them widely available over the Internet. The program is described in two articles by Caroline R. Arms, "Historical Collections for the National Digital Library". The NDLP itself draws on experience gained through the earlier American Memory Program. Based on this work, we have built a pilot system that demonstrates how digital objects can be used to organize complex materials, such as those found in the NDLP. The pilot was demonstrated to members of the library in July 1996. The pilot system includes the handle system for identifying digital objects, a pilot repository to store them, and two user interfaces: one designed for librarians to manage digital objects in the repository, the other for library patrons to access the materials stored in the repository. Materials from the NDLP's Coolidge Consumerism compilation have been deposited into the pilot repository. They include a variety of photographs and texts, converted to digital form. The pilot demonstrates the use of handles for identifying such material, the use of meta-objects for managing sets of digital objects, and the choice of metadata. We are now implementing an enhanced prototype system for completion in early 1997.

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=1264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0038056213 = product of:
  0.0076112426 = sum of:
    0.0076112426 = product of:
      0.015222485 = sum of:
        0.015222485 = weight(_text_:22 in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015222485 = score(doc=5988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2006 17:22:54

0.0038056213 = product of:
  0.0076112426 = sum of:
    0.0076112426 = product of:
      0.015222485 = sum of:
        0.015222485 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015222485 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.0038056213 = product of:
  0.0076112426 = sum of:
    0.0076112426 = product of:
      0.015222485 = sum of:
        0.015222485 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015222485 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.0038056213 = product of:
  0.0076112426 = sum of:
    0.0076112426 = product of:
      0.015222485 = sum of:
        0.015222485 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015222485 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.0034006299 = product of:
  0.0068012597 = sum of:
    0.0068012597 = product of:
      0.013602519 = sum of:
        0.013602519 = weight(_text_:r in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013602519 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0034006299 = product of:
  0.0068012597 = sum of:
    0.0068012597 = product of:
      0.013602519 = sum of:
        0.013602519 = weight(_text_:r in 2728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013602519 = score(doc=2728,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 2728, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0028338581 = product of:
  0.0056677163 = sum of:
    0.0056677163 = product of:
      0.0113354325 = sum of:
        0.0113354325 = weight(_text_:r in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0113354325 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.09143383 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)