Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Peters, I."
  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  1. Barth, J.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.; Gremm, J.; Hartmann, S.; Henkel, M.; Ilhan, A.; Mainka, A.; Meschede, C.; Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaft in der Urbanistik : Teil 1: Konzeptioneller Forschungsrahmen und Methoden (2017) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 3730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=3730,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3730, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3730)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  2. Barth, J.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.; Gremm, J.; Hartmann, S.; Henkel, M.; Ilhan, A.; Mainka, A.; Meschede, C.; Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaft in der Urbanistik : Teil 2: Erste empirische Ergebnisse zu smarten Städten (2018) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=5020,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  3. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.00
    0.0026742492 = product of:
      0.0053484985 = sum of:
        0.0053484985 = product of:
          0.010696997 = sum of:
            0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010696997 = score(doc=865,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
    Type
    a
  4. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00
    0.0014351527 = product of:
      0.0028703054 = sum of:
        0.0028703054 = product of:
          0.005740611 = sum of:
            0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005740611 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
    Type
    a