Search (173 results, page 1 of 9)

0.067262225 = product of:
  0.13452445 = sum of:
    0.13452445 = sum of:
      0.103880174 = weight(_text_:n in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103880174 = score(doc=992,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.53260374 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

0.053970627 = product of:
  0.107941255 = sum of:
    0.107941255 = sum of:
      0.06503927 = weight(_text_:n in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06503927 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.04290199 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04290199 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.048171937 = product of:
  0.096343875 = sum of:
    0.096343875 = sum of:
      0.06569959 = weight(_text_:n in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06569959 = score(doc=263,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When people experience major life changes, this often impacts their self-presentation, networks, and online behavior in substantial ways. To effectively study major life transitions and events, we surveyed a large U.S. sample (n = 554) to create the Major Life Events Taxonomy, a list of 121 life events in 12 categories. We then applied this taxonomy to a second large U.S. survey sample (n = 775) to understand on average how much social readjustment each event required, how likely each event was to be shared on social media with different types of audiences, and how much online network separation each involved. We found that social readjustment is positively correlated with sharing on social media, with both broad audiences and close ties as well as in online spaces separate from one's network of known ties. Some life transitions involve high levels of sharing with both separate audiences and broad audiences on social media, providing evidence for what previous research has called social media as social transition machinery. Researchers can use the Major Life Events Taxonomy to examine how people's life transition experiences relate to their behaviors, technology use, and health and well-being outcomes.

Date

10. 6.2021 19:22:47

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5973, 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=5973)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While it is clear that using a mobile device can interrupt real-world activities such as walking or driving, the effects of interruptions on mobile device use have been under-studied. We are particularly interested in how the ambient distraction of walking while using a mobile device, combined with the occurrence of simulated interruptions of different levels of cognitive complexity, affect web search activities. We have established an experimental design to study how the degree of cognitive complexity of simulated interruptions influences both objective and subjective search task performance. In a controlled laboratory study (n = 27), quantitative and qualitative data were collected on mobile search performance, perceptions of the interruptions, and how participants reacted to the interruptions, using a custom mobile eye-tracking app, a questionnaire, and observations. As expected, more cognitively complex interruptions resulted in increased overall task completion times and higher perceived impacts. Interestingly, the effect on the resumption lag or the actual search performance was not significant, showing the resiliency of people to resume their tasks after an interruption. Implications from this study enhance our understanding of how interruptions objectively and subjectively affect search task performance, motivating the need for providing explicit mobile search support to enable recovery from interruptions.

Date

3. 5.2022 13:22:33

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 996, 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=996)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis provided an opportunity for information professionals to rethink the role of information in individuals' decision making such as vaccine uptake. Unlike previous studies, which often considered information as a single factor among others, this study examined the impact of the quantity and trustworthiness of information on people's adoption of information for vaccination decisions based on the information adoption model. We analyzed COVID-19 Preventive Behavior Survey data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from Facebook users (N = 82,213) in 15 countries between October 2020 and March 2021. The results of logistic regression analyses indicate that reasonable quantity and trustworthiness of information were positively related to COVID-19 vaccination intent. But excessive and less than the desired amount of information was more likely to have negative impacts on vaccination intent. The degrees of trust in the mediums and in the sources were associated with the level of vaccine acceptance. But the effects of trustworthiness accorded to information sources showed variations across sources and mediums. Implications for information professionals and suggestions for policies are discussed.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:20:47

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.

0.03084036 = product of:
  0.06168072 = sum of:
    0.06168072 = sum of:
      0.0371653 = weight(_text_:n in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0371653 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.024515422 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024515422 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.026942542 = product of:
  0.053885084 = sum of:
    0.053885084 = product of:
      0.21554033 = sum of:
        0.21554033 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21554033 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38351142 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.026279835 = product of:
  0.05255967 = sum of:
    0.05255967 = product of:
      0.10511934 = sum of:
        0.10511934 = weight(_text_:n in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10511934 = score(doc=675,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.53895706 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023228312 = product of:
  0.046456624 = sum of:
    0.046456624 = product of:
      0.09291325 = sum of:
        0.09291325 = weight(_text_:n in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09291325 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023228312 = product of:
  0.046456624 = sum of:
    0.046456624 = product of:
      0.09291325 = sum of:
        0.09291325 = weight(_text_:n in 874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09291325 = score(doc=874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02245212 = product of:
  0.04490424 = sum of:
    0.04490424 = product of:
      0.17961696 = sum of:
        0.17961696 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17961696 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38351142 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.02245212 = product of:
  0.04490424 = sum of:
    0.04490424 = product of:
      0.17961696 = sum of:
        0.17961696 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17961696 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38351142 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.021450995 = product of:
  0.04290199 = sum of:
    0.04290199 = product of:
      0.08580398 = sum of:
        0.08580398 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08580398 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.020116309 = product of:
  0.040232617 = sum of:
    0.040232617 = product of:
      0.080465235 = sum of:
        0.080465235 = weight(_text_:n in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080465235 = score(doc=103,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.41255307 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.

0.01858265 = product of:
  0.0371653 = sum of:
    0.0371653 = product of:
      0.0743306 = sum of:
        0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 5482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743306 = score(doc=5482,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 5482, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5482)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01858265 = product of:
  0.0371653 = sum of:
    0.0371653 = product of:
      0.0743306 = sum of:
        0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743306 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01858265 = product of:
  0.0371653 = sum of:
    0.0371653 = product of:
      0.0743306 = sum of:
        0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743306 = score(doc=807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018386567 = product of:
  0.036773134 = sum of:
    0.036773134 = product of:
      0.07354627 = sum of:
        0.07354627 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07354627 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22