Search (64 results, page 4 of 4)

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:24:08

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=2511,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2511, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a novel personalized concept-based search mechanism for the Web of Data based on results categorization. The innovation of the paper comes from combining novel categorization and personalization techniques, and using categorization for providing personalization. In our approach, search results (Linked Open Data resources) are dynamically categorized into Upper Mapping and Binding Exchange Layer (UMBEL) concepts using a novel fuzzy retrieval model. Then, results with the same concepts are grouped together to form categories, which we call conceptlenses. Such categorization enables concept-based browsing of the retrieved results aligned to users' intent or interests. When the user selects a concept lens for exploration, results are immediately personalized. In particular, all concept lenses are personally re-organized according to their similarity to the selected lens. Within the selected concept lens; more relevant results are included using results re-ranking and query expansion, as well as relevant concept lenses are suggested to support results exploration. This allows dynamic adaptation of results to the user's local choices. We also support interactive personalization; when the user clicks on a result, within the interacted lens, relevant lenses and results are included using results re-ranking and query expansion. Extensive evaluations were performed to assess our approach: (i) Performance of our fuzzy-based categorization approach was evaluated on a particular benchmark (~10,000 mappings). The evaluations showed that we can achieve highly acceptable categorization accuracy and perform better than the vector space model. (ii) Personalized search efficacy was assessed using a user study with 32 participants in a tourist domain. The results revealed that our approach performed significantly better than a non-adaptive baseline search. (iii) Dynamic personalization performance was evaluated, which illustrated that our personalization approach is scalable. (iv) Finally, we compared our system with the existing LOD search engines, which showed that our approach is unique.

0.0062492304 = product of:
  0.012498461 = sum of:
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = weight(_text_:i in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024996921 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.14585242 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?" (Erickson, 2002, p. 269). The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is rapidly expanding. Alongside the extensive technological developments that are taking place, a profusion of new theories, methods, and concerns has been imported into the field from a range of disciplines and contexts. An extensive critique of recent theoretical developments is presented here together with an overview of HCI practice. A consequence of bringing new theories into the field has been much insightful explication of HCI phenomena and also a broadening of the field's discourse. However, these theoretically based approaches have had limited impact an the practice of interaction design. This chapter discusses why this is so and suggests that different kinds of mechanisms are needed that will enable both designers and researchers to better articulate and theoretically ground the challenges facing them today. Human-computer interaction is bursting at the seams. Its mission, goals, and methods, well established in the '80s, have all greatly expanded to the point that "HCI is now effectively a boundless domain" (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000, p. 221). Everything is in a state of flux: The theory driving research is changing, a flurry of new concepts is emerging, the domains and type of users being studied are diversifying, many of the ways of doing design are new, and much of what is being designed is significantly different. Although potentially much is to be gained from such rapid growth, the downside is an increasing lack of direction, structure, and coherence in the field. What was originally a bounded problem space with a clear focus and a small set of methods for designing computer systems that were easier and more efficient to use by a single user is now turning into a diffuse problem space with less clarity in terms of its objects of study, design foci, and investigative methods. Instead, aspirations of overcoming the Digital Divide, by providing universal accessibility, have become major concerns (e.g., Shneiderman, 2002a). The move toward greater openness in the field means that many more topics, areas, and approaches are now considered acceptable in the worlds of research and practice.

0.0061564078 = product of:
  0.0123128155 = sum of:
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024625631 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22