Search (6652 results, page 333 of 333)

0.0027008434 = product of:
  0.0054016868 = sum of:
    0.0054016868 = product of:
      0.0108033735 = sum of:
        0.0108033735 = weight(_text_:p in 5965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108033735 = score(doc=5965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 5965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

da nun nach fast 200 Seiten der Hauptteil der Dissertation folgt - die Vorstellung und Bewertung des bereits erwähnten COSIMIR Modells. Das COSIMIR Modell "berechnet die Ähnlichkeit zwischen den zwei anliegenden Input-Vektoren" (P.194). Der Output des Netzwerks wird an einem einzigen Knoten abgegriffen, an dem sich ein sogenannten Relevanzwert einstellt, wenn die Berechnungen der Gewichtungen interner Knoten zum Abschluss kommen. Diese Gewichtungen hängen von den angelegten Inputvektoren, aus denen die Gewichte der ersten Knotenschicht ermittelt werden, und den im Netzwerk vorgegebenen Kantengewichten ab. Die Gewichtung von Kanten ist der Kernpunkt des neuronalen Ansatzes: In Analogie zum biologischen Urbild (Dendrit mit Synapsen) wächst das Gewicht der Kante mit jeder Aktivierung während einer Trainingsphase. Legt man in dieser Phase zwei Inputvektoren, z.B. Dokumentvektor und Ouery gleichzeitig mit dem Relevanzurteil als Wert des Outputknoten an, verteilen sich durch den BackpropagationProzess die Gewichte entlang der Pfade, die zwischen den beteiligten Knoten bestehen. Da alle Knoten miteinander verbunden sind, entstehen nach mehreren Trainingsbeispielen bereits deutlich unterschiedliche Kantengewichte, weil die aktiv beteiligten Kanten die Änderungen akkumulativ speichern. Eine Variation des Verfahrens benutzt das NN als "Transformationsnetzwerk", wobei die beiden Inputvektoren mit einer Dokumentrepräsentation und einem dazugehörigen Indexat (von einem Experten bereitgestellt) belegt werden. Neben der schon aufgezeigten Trainingsnotwendigkeit weisen die Neuronalen Netze eine weitere intrinsische Problematik auf: Je mehr äußere Knoten benötigt werden, desto mehr interne Kanten (und bei der Verwendung von Zwischenschichten auch Knoten) sind zu verwalten, deren Anzahl nicht linear wächst. Dieser algorithmische Befund setzt naiven Einsätzen der NN-Modelle in der Praxis schnell Grenzen, deshalb ist es umso verdienstvoller, dass der Autor einen innovativen Weg zur Lösung des Problems mit den Mitteln des IR vorschlagen kann. Er verwendet das Latent Semantic Indexing, welches Dokumentrepräsentationen aus einem hochdimensionalen Vektorraum in einen niederdimensionalen abbildet, um die Anzahl der Knoten deutlich zu reduzieren. Damit ist eine sehr schöne Synthese gelungen, welche die eingangs angedeuteten formalen Übereinstimmungen zwischen Vektorraummodellen im IR und den NN aufzeigt und ausnutzt.

0.0027008434 = product of:
  0.0054016868 = sum of:
    0.0054016868 = product of:
      0.0108033735 = sum of:
        0.0108033735 = weight(_text_:p in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108033735 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."

0.0027008434 = product of:
  0.0054016868 = sum of:
    0.0054016868 = product of:
      0.0108033735 = sum of:
        0.0108033735 = weight(_text_:p in 442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108033735 = score(doc=442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.4, S.608-609 (K.D. Desouza): "Richard Rogers explores the distinctiveness of the World Wide Web as a politically contested space where information searchers may encounter multiple explanations of reality. Sources of information on the Web are in constant competition with each other for attention. The attention a source receives will determine its prominence, the ability to be a provider of leading information, and its inclusion in authoritative spaces. Rogers explores the politics behind evaluating sources that are collected and housed on authoritative spaces. Information politics on the Web can be looked at in terms of frontend or back-end politics. Front-end politics is concerned with whether sources on the Web pay attention to principles of inclusivity, fairness, and scope of representation in how information is presented, while back-end politics examines the logic behind how search engines or portals select and index information. Concerning front-end politics, Rogers questions the various versions of reality one can derive from examining information on the Web, especially when issues of information inclusivity and scope of representation are toiled with. In addition, Rogers is concerned with how back-end politics are being controlled by dominant forces of the market (i.e., the more an organization is willing to pay, the greater will be the site's visibility and prominence in authoritative spaces), regardless of whether the information presented on the site justifies such a placement. In the book, Rogers illustrates the issues involved in back-end and front-end politics (though heavily slanted on front-end politics) using vivid cases, all of which are derived from his own research. The main thrust is the exploration of how various "information instruments," defined as "a digital and analytical means of recording (capturing) and subsequently reading indications of states of defined information streams (p. 19)," help capture the politics of the Web. Rogers employs four specific instruments (Lay Decision Support System, Issue Barometer, Web Issue Index of Civil Society, and Election Issue Tracker), which are covered in detail in core chapters of the book (Chapter 2-Chapter 5). The book is comprised of six chapters, with Chapter 1 being the traditional introduction and Chapter 6 being a summary of the major concepts discussed.

0.0027008434 = product of:
  0.0054016868 = sum of:
    0.0054016868 = product of:
      0.0108033735 = sum of:
        0.0108033735 = weight(_text_:p in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108033735 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0027008434 = product of:
  0.0054016868 = sum of:
    0.0054016868 = product of:
      0.0108033735 = sum of:
        0.0108033735 = weight(_text_:p in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108033735 = score(doc=312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 1733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=1733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2003 12:13:13

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2005 19:05:37

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=4871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 4871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2006 18:34:49

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=5580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.90-97

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 3684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=3684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2005 9:52:00

0.0025619334 = product of:
  0.0051238667 = sum of:
    0.0051238667 = product of:
      0.010247733 = sum of:
        0.010247733 = weight(_text_:22 in 3917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010247733 = score(doc=3917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22