Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × type_ss:"r"
  1. ALA / Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures: Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee (1997) 0.01 
    0.01054257 = product of:
  0.02108514 = sum of:
    0.02108514 = product of:
      0.031627707 = sum of:
        0.020824604 = weight(_text_:c in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020824604 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
        0.010803103 = weight(_text_:h in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010803103 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.096073404 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool
  2. Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017) 0.01 
    0.010220192 = product of:
  0.020440385 = sum of:
    0.020440385 = product of:
      0.061321154 = sum of:
        0.061321154 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061321154 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13.12.2017 14:17:22
  3. De Rosa, C.; Cantrell, J.; Cellentani, D.; Hawk, J.; Jenkins, L.; Wilson, A.: Perceptions of libraries and information resources : A Report to the OCLC Membership (2005) 0.01 
    0.0059498874 = product of:
  0.011899775 = sum of:
    0.011899775 = product of:
      0.035699323 = sum of:
        0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035699323 = score(doc=5018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Wätjen, H.-J.; Diekmann, B.; Möller, G.; Carstensen, K.-U.: Bericht zum DFG-Projekt: GERHARD : German Harvest Automated Retrieval and Directory (1998) 0.01 
    0.0051443353 = product of:
  0.010288671 = sum of:
    0.010288671 = product of:
      0.030866012 = sum of:
        0.030866012 = weight(_text_:h in 3065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030866012 = score(doc=3065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 3065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3065)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Förderung von Informationsinfrastrukturen für die Wissenschaft : Ein Positionspapier der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (2018) 0.01 
    0.005110096 = product of:
  0.010220192 = sum of:
    0.010220192 = product of:
      0.030660577 = sum of:
        0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030660577 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2018 17:30:43
  6. Endres-Niggemeyer, B.; Ziegert, C.: SummIt-BMT : (Summarize It in BMT) in Diagnose und Therapie, Abschlussbericht (2002) 0.00 
    0.0049582394 = product of:
  0.009916479 = sum of:
    0.009916479 = product of:
      0.029749434 = sum of:
        0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029749434 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4497, 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=4497)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. Adler, R.; Ewing, J.; Taylor, P.: Citation statistics : A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) (2008) 0.00 
    0.0034509252 = product of:
  0.0069018505 = sum of:
    0.0069018505 = product of:
      0.02070555 = sum of:
        0.02070555 = weight(_text_:h in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02070555 = score(doc=2417,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.18413715 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
    The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.
    Content
    Der vollständige Bericht ist im Internet unter der folgenden Adresse zugänglich: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf. - Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Zitaten-Statistiken. In: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2008, H.3, S.198-203.
    Object
    h-index
  8. Studer, R.; Studer, H.-P.; Studer, A.: Semantisches Knowledge Retrieval (2001) 0.00 
    0.0030866012 = product of:
  0.0061732023 = sum of:
    0.0061732023 = product of:
      0.018519606 = sum of:
        0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 4322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018519606 = score(doc=4322,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4322, 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=4322)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  9. Reiner, U.: VZG-Projekt Colibri : Bewertung von automatisch DDC-klassifizierten Titeldatensätzen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek (DNB) (2009) 0.00 
    0.0025721677 = product of:
  0.0051443353 = sum of:
    0.0051443353 = product of:
      0.015433006 = sum of:
        0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 2675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015433006 = score(doc=2675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2675, 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=2675)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Das VZG-Projekt Colibri/DDC beschäftigt sich seit 2003 mit automatischen Verfahren zur Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation (Dewey Decimal Classification, kurz DDC). Ziel des Projektes ist eine einheitliche DDC-Erschließung von bibliografischen Titeldatensätzen und eine Unterstützung der DDC-Expert(inn)en und DDC-Laien, z. B. bei der Analyse und Synthese von DDC-Notationen und deren Qualitätskontrolle und der DDC-basierten Suche. Der vorliegende Bericht konzentriert sich auf die erste größere automatische DDC-Klassifizierung und erste automatische und intellektuelle Bewertung mit der Klassifizierungskomponente vc_dcl1. Grundlage hierfür waren die von der Deutschen Nationabibliothek (DNB) im November 2007 zur Verfügung gestellten 25.653 Titeldatensätze (12 Wochen-/Monatslieferungen) der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie der Reihen A, B und H. Nach Erläuterung der automatischen DDC-Klassifizierung und automatischen Bewertung in Kapitel 2 wird in Kapitel 3 auf den DNB-Bericht "Colibri_Auswertung_DDC_Endbericht_Sommer_2008" eingegangen. Es werden Sachverhalte geklärt und Fragen gestellt, deren Antworten die Weichen für den Verlauf der weiteren Klassifizierungstests stellen werden. Über das Kapitel 3 hinaus führende weitergehende Betrachtungen und Gedanken zur Fortführung der automatischen DDC-Klassifizierung werden in Kapitel 4 angestellt. Der Bericht dient dem vertieften Verständnis für die automatischen Verfahren.
  10. Garrel, J. von; Mayer, J.; Mühlfeld, M.: Künstliche Intelligenz im Studium : eine quantitative Befragung von Studierenden zur Nutzung von ChatGPT & Co. (2023) 0.00 
    0.0025721677 = product of:
  0.0051443353 = sum of:
    0.0051443353 = product of:
      0.015433006 = sum of:
        0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015433006 = score(doc=1006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1006, 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=1006)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-h-da/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/395/file/befragung_ki-im-studium.pdf
  11. Euzenat, J.; Bach, T.Le; Barrasa, J.; Bouquet, P.; Bo, J.De; Dieng, R.; Ehrig, M.; Hauswirth, M.; Jarrar, M.; Lara, R.; Maynard, D.; Napoli, A.; Stamou, G.; Stuckenschmidt, H.; Shvaiko, P.; Tessaris, S.; Acker, S. Van; Zaihrayeu, I.: State of the art on ontology alignment (2004) 0.00 
    0.0020577342 = product of:
  0.0041154684 = sum of:
    0.0041154684 = product of:
      0.012346405 = sum of:
        0.012346405 = weight(_text_:h in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012346405 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  12. Nohr, H.: Wissen und Wissensprozesse visualisieren (2000) 0.00 
    0.0018005173 = product of:
  0.0036010346 = sum of:
    0.0036010346 = product of:
      0.010803103 = sum of:
        0.010803103 = weight(_text_:h in 2974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010803103 = score(doc=2974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045260075 = queryNorm
            0.096073404 = fieldWeight in 2974, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2974)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes