Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00986703 = product of:
  0.06906921 = sum of:
    0.06906921 = product of:
      0.13813841 = sum of:
        0.13813841 = weight(_text_:3d in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13813841 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21879539 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.63135886 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Aid

Yahoo!3D

0.0073219254 = product of:
  0.025626738 = sum of:
    0.017084492 = weight(_text_:j in 4837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084492 = score(doc=4837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030630698 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4837)
    0.008542246 = product of:
      0.017084492 = sum of:
        0.017084492 = weight(_text_:j in 4837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017084492 = score(doc=4837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

0.0073219254 = product of:
  0.025626738 = sum of:
    0.017084492 = weight(_text_:j in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084492 = score(doc=3366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030630698 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3366)
    0.008542246 = product of:
      0.017084492 = sum of:
        0.017084492 = weight(_text_:j in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017084492 = score(doc=3366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3366, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

0.006977043 = product of:
  0.0488393 = sum of:
    0.0488393 = product of:
      0.0976786 = sum of:
        0.0976786 = weight(_text_:3d in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0976786 = score(doc=4746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21879539 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.44643813 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Many real-world domains can be represented as large node-link graphs: backbone Internet routers connect with 70,000 other hosts, mid-sized Web servers handle between 20,000 and 200,000 hyperlinked documents, and dictionaries contain millions of words defined in terms of each other. Computational manipulation of such large graphs is common, but previous tools for graph visualization have been limited to datasets of a few thousand nodes. Visual depictions of graphs and networks are external representations that exploit human visual processing to reduce the cognitive load of many tasks that require understanding of global or local structure. We assert that the two key advantages of computer-based systems for information visualization over traditional paper-based visual exposition are interactivity and scalability. We also argue that designing visualization software by taking the characteristics of a target user's task domain into account leads to systems that are more effective and scale to larger datasets than previous work. This thesis contains a detailed analysis of three specialized systems for the interactive exploration of large graphs, relating the intended tasks to the spatial layout and visual encoding choices. We present two novel algorithms for specialized layout and drawing that use quite different visual metaphors. The H3 system for visualizing the hyperlink structures of web sites scales to datasets of over 100,000 nodes by using a carefully chosen spanning tree as the layout backbone, 3D hyperbolic geometry for a Focus+Context view, and provides a fluid interactive experience through guaranteed frame rate drawing. The Constellation system features a highly specialized 2D layout intended to spatially encode domain-specific information for computational linguists checking the plausibility of a large semantic network created from dictionaries. The Planet Multicast system for displaying the tunnel topology of the Internet's multicast backbone provides a literal 3D geographic layout of arcs on a globe to help MBone maintainers find misconfigured long-distance tunnels. Each of these three systems provides a very different view of the graph structure, and we evaluate their efficacy for the intended task. We generalize these findings in our analysis of the importance of interactivity and specialization for graph visualization systems that are effective and scalable.

0.0058575408 = product of:
  0.020501392 = sum of:
    0.013667595 = weight(_text_:j in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013667595 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030630698 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
    0.0068337973 = product of:
      0.013667595 = sum of:
        0.013667595 = weight(_text_:j in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013667595 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Data visualization and knowledge engineering. Eds. J. Hemanth, et al

0.0051773833 = product of:
  0.01812084 = sum of:
    0.01208056 = weight(_text_:j in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01208056 = score(doc=1211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030630698 = queryNorm
        0.12412095 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.00604028 = product of:
      0.01208056 = sum of:
        0.01208056 = weight(_text_:j in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01208056 = score(doc=1211,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09732894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.12412095 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

0.003700136 = product of:
  0.02590095 = sum of:
    0.02590095 = product of:
      0.0518019 = sum of:
        0.0518019 = weight(_text_:3d in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0518019 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21879539 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.23675957 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.14301 = idf(docFreq=94, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

When our experience of information discovery is mediated by a computer, we neither move ourselves nor the monitor. We have only the computer's monitor to view, and the keyboard and/or mouse to manipulate what is displayed there. Computer interfaces often reduce our ability to get a sense of the contents of a library: we don't perceive the scope of the library: its breadth, (the quantity of materials/information), its density (how full the shelves are, how thorough the collection is for individual topics), or the general audience for the materials (e.g., whether the materials are appropriate for middle school students, college professors, etc.). Additionally, many computer interfaces for information discovery require users to scroll through long lists, to click numerous navigational links and to read a lot of text to find the exact text they want to read. Text features of resources are almost always presented alphabetically, and the number of items in these alphabetical lists sometimes can be very long. Alphabetical ordering is certainly an improvement over no ordering, but it generally has no bearing on features with an inherent non-alphabetical ordering (e.g., dates of historical events), nor does it necessarily group similar items together. Alphabetical ordering of resources is analogous to one of the most familiar complaints about dictionaries: sometimes you need to know how to spell a word in order to look up its correct spelling in the dictionary. Some have used technology to replicate the appearance of physical libraries, presenting rooms of bookcases and shelves of book spines in virtual 3D environments. This approach presents a problem, as few book spines can be displayed legibly on a monitor screen. This article examines the role of book spines, call numbers, and other traditional organizational and information discovery concepts, and integrates this knowledge with information visualization techniques to show how computers and monitors can meet or exceed similar information discovery methods. The goal is to tap the unique potentials of current information visualization approaches in order to improve information discovery, offer new services, and most important of all, improve user satisfaction. We need to capitalize on what computers do well while bearing in mind their limitations. The intent is to design GUIs to optimize utility and provide a positive experience for the user.

0.0017785872 = product of:
  0.01245011 = sum of:
    0.01245011 = product of:
      0.02490022 = sum of:
        0.02490022 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02490022 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10726349 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

8.892936E-4 = product of:
  0.006225055 = sum of:
    0.006225055 = product of:
      0.01245011 = sum of:
        0.01245011 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01245011 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10726349 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030630698 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.