Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0049582394 = product of:
  0.009916479 = sum of:
    0.009916479 = product of:
      0.029749434 = sum of:
        0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029749434 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0049582394 = product of:
  0.009916479 = sum of:
    0.009916479 = product of:
      0.029749434 = sum of:
        0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 3325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029749434 = score(doc=3325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3325)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Topic models have been shown to be a useful way of representing the content of large document collections, for example, via visualization interfaces (topic browsers). These systems enable users to explore collections by way of latent topics. A standard way to represent a topic is using a term list; that is the top-n words with highest conditional probability within the topic. Other topic representations such as textual and image labels also have been proposed. However, there has been no comparison of these alternative representations. In this article, we compare 3 different topic representations in a document retrieval task. Participants were asked to retrieve relevant documents based on predefined queries within a fixed time limit, presenting topics in one of the following modalities: (a) lists of terms, (b) textual phrase labels, and (c) image labels. Results show that textual labels are easier for users to interpret than are term lists and image labels. Moreover, the precision of retrieved documents for textual and image labels is comparable to the precision achieved by representing topics using term lists, demonstrating that labeling methods are an effective alternative topic representation.

0.0039665913 = product of:
  0.007933183 = sum of:
    0.007933183 = product of:
      0.023799548 = sum of:
        0.023799548 = weight(_text_:c in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023799548 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0039665913 = product of:
  0.007933183 = sum of:
    0.007933183 = product of:
      0.023799548 = sum of:
        0.023799548 = weight(_text_:c in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023799548 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Coopmans, C. et al.

0.0036010346 = product of:
  0.0072020693 = sum of:
    0.0072020693 = product of:
      0.021606207 = sum of:
        0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021606207 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 68(2015) H.3/4, S.416-438

0.0030866012 = product of:
  0.0061732023 = sum of:
    0.0061732023 = product of:
      0.018519606 = sum of:
        0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018519606 = score(doc=4969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0030660578 = product of:
  0.0061321156 = sum of:
    0.0061321156 = product of:
      0.018396346 = sum of:
        0.018396346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018396346 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0025721677 = product of:
  0.0051443353 = sum of:
    0.0051443353 = product of:
      0.015433006 = sum of:
        0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015433006 = score(doc=3366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3366, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3366)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0025721677 = product of:
  0.0051443353 = sum of:
    0.0051443353 = product of:
      0.015433006 = sum of:
        0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015433006 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Datenbank Spektrum. 17(2017) H.1, S.53-60

0.0025721677 = product of:
  0.0051443353 = sum of:
    0.0051443353 = product of:
      0.015433006 = sum of:
        0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 3912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015433006 = score(doc=3912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3912)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 70(2017) H.2, S.179-199