Search (4899 results, page 1 of 245)

0.25814766 = sum of:
  0.06343388 = product of:
    0.2537355 = sum of:
      0.2537355 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2537355 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.19471379 = sum of:
    0.15142421 = weight(_text_:q in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15142421 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.043289572 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043289572 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.23190996 = sum of:
  0.10572313 = product of:
    0.4228925 = sum of:
      0.4228925 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.4228925 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.12618683 = product of:
    0.25237367 = sum of:
      0.25237367 = weight(_text_:q in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25237367 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.2036779 = sum of:
  0.02647381 = product of:
    0.10589524 = sum of:
      0.10589524 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10589524 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.17720409 = sum of:
    0.12618683 = weight(_text_:q in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12618683 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.05101725 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05101725 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.17754614 = sum of:
  0.01528466 = product of:
    0.06113864 = sum of:
      0.06113864 = weight(_text_:authors in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06113864 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.16226149 = sum of:
    0.12618683 = weight(_text_:q in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12618683 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 5290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5290)
    0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 5290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036074646 = score(doc=5290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05325213 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5290, 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=5290)

Abstract

Document keyphrases provide a concise summary of a document's content, offering semantic metadata summarizing a document. They can be used in many applications related to knowledge management and text mining, such as automatic text summarization, development of search engines, document clustering, document classification, thesaurus construction, and browsing interfaces. Because only a small portion of documents have keyphrases assigned by authors, and it is time-consuming and costly to manually assign keyphrases to documents, it is necessary to develop an algorithm to automatically generate keyphrases for documents. This paper describes a Keyphrase Identification Program (KIP), which extracts document keyphrases by using prior positive samples of human identified phrases to assign weights to the candidate keyphrases. The logic of our algorithm is: The more keywords a candidate keyphrase contains and the more significant these keywords are, the more likely this candidate phrase is a keyphrase. KIP's learning function can enrich the glossary database by automatically adding new identified keyphrases to the database. KIP's personalization feature will let the user build a glossary database specifically suitable for the area of his/her interest. The evaluation results show that KIP's performance is better than the systems we compared to and that the learning function is effective.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:25:48

0.173069 = product of:
  0.346138 = sum of:
    0.346138 = sum of:
      0.30284843 = weight(_text_:q in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.30284843 = score(doc=1067,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.86833495 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
      0.043289572 = weight(_text_:22 in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043289572 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social question-and-answer (Q&A) communities are becoming increasingly important for knowledge acquisition. However, some users withhold knowledge, which can hinder the effectiveness of these platforms. Based on social exchange theory, the study investigates how different types of questions influence knowledge withholding, with question difficulty and user anonymity as boundary conditions. Two experiments were conducted to test hypotheses. Results indicate that informational questions are more likely to lead to knowledge withholding than conversational ones, as they elicit more fear of negative evaluation and fear of exploitation. The study also examines the interplay of question difficulty and user anonymity with question type. Overall, this study significantly extends the existing literature on counterproductive knowledge behavior by exploring the antecedents of knowledge withholding in social Q&A communities.

Date

22. 9.2023 13:51:47

0.1551807 = sum of:
  0.030262083 = product of:
    0.12104833 = sum of:
      0.12104833 = weight(_text_:authors in 4104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12104833 = score(doc=4104,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 4104, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4104)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.12491861 = product of:
    0.24983722 = sum of:
      0.24983722 = weight(_text_:q in 4104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24983722 = score(doc=4104,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.7163398 = fieldWeight in 4104, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4104)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the rapid development of Web 2.0, online reviews have become extremely valuable sources for mining customers' opinions. Fine-grained opinion mining has attracted more and more attention of both applied and theoretical research. In this article, the authors study how to automatically mine product features and opinions from multiple review sources. Specifically, they propose an integration strategy to solve the issue. Within the integration strategy, the authors mine domain knowledge from semistructured reviews and then exploit the domain knowledge to assist product feature extraction and sentiment orientation identification from unstructured reviews. Finally, feature-opinion tuples are generated. Experimental results on real-world datasets show that the proposed approach is effective.

0.14422415 = product of:
  0.2884483 = sum of:
    0.2884483 = sum of:
      0.25237367 = weight(_text_:q in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25237367 = score(doc=2756,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
      0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036074646 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2756, 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=2756)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the criteria questioners use to select the best answers in a social Q&A site (Yahoo! Answers) within the theoretical framework of relevance research. A social Q&A site is a novel environment where people voluntarily ask and answer questions. In Yahoo! Answers, the questioner selects the answer that best satisfies his or her question and leaves comments on it. Under the assumption that the comments reflect the reasons why questioners select particular answers as the best, this study analyzed 2,140 comments collected from Yahoo! Answers during December 2007. The content analysis identified 23 individual relevance criteria in six classes: Content, Cognitive, Utility, Information Sources, Extrinsic, and Socioemotional. A major finding is that the selection criteria used in a social Q&A site have considerable overlap with many relevance criteria uncovered in previous relevance studies, but that the scope of socio-emotional criteria has been expanded to include the social aspect of this environment. Another significant finding is that the relative importance of individual criteria varies according to topic categories. Socioemotional criteria are popular in discussion-oriented categories, content-oriented criteria in topic-oriented categories, and utility criteria in self-help categories. This study generalizes previous relevance studies to a new environment by going beyond an academic setting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:57:23

0.14422415 = product of:
  0.2884483 = sum of:
    0.2884483 = sum of:
      0.25237367 = weight(_text_:q in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25237367 = score(doc=4637,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
      0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036074646 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4637, 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=4637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined. Findings The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines. Originality/value The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.14422415 = product of:
  0.2884483 = sum of:
    0.2884483 = sum of:
      0.25237367 = weight(_text_:q in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25237367 = score(doc=5497,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
      0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036074646 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5497, 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=5497)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine some drivers of users' participation in online social question-and-answer (Q&A) communities based on social cognitive theory and then identify the underlying mechanism of this process. Design/methodology/approach This study developed a research model to test the proposed hypotheses, and an online survey was employed to collected data. Totally, 313 valid responses were collected, and partial least squares structural equation modeling was adopted to analyze these data. Findings This study empirically finds that the outcome expectations (personal outcome expectations and knowledge self-management outcome expectations) are positively related to participation in online social Q&A communities. At the same time, users' self-efficacy positively influences their participation behaviors. It can not only directly motivate users' participation, but also indirectly promote participation behaviors through the two dimensions of outcome expectations. Besides, perceived expertise and perceived similarity are two positive and significant environmental elements affecting users' participation. Originality/value This study extends the understanding about how participation behaviors will be motivated in the context of online social Q&A communities. Drawing on the social cognitive theory, constructs were established based on the features of these communities. Meanwhile, some mediating effects in the motivating process were also discussed.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.13914599 = sum of:
  0.06343388 = product of:
    0.2537355 = sum of:
      0.2537355 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2537355 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07571211 = product of:
    0.15142421 = sum of:
      0.15142421 = weight(_text_:q in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15142421 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.13546962 = product of:
  0.27093923 = sum of:
    0.27093923 = product of:
      0.54187846 = sum of:
        0.21144626 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21144626 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05325213 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, 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=692)
        0.33043224 = weight(_text_:2c in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33043224 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.56438076 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05325213 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.12539412 = sum of:
  0.037063334 = product of:
    0.14825334 = sum of:
      0.14825334 = weight(_text_:authors in 5138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14825334 = score(doc=5138,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 5138, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5138)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08833079 = product of:
    0.17666158 = sum of:
      0.17666158 = weight(_text_:q in 5138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17666158 = score(doc=5138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 5138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5138)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article suggests that catalogers can provide authority control for authors of journal articles by linking to external international authority databases. It explores the representation of article authors from three disciplines in four databases: International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI), Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), Scopus, and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). VIAF and Scopus are particularly promising databases for journal author names, but we believe that a combination of several name databases holds more promise than relying on a single database. We provide examples of RDF links between bibliographic description and author identifiers, including a partial BIBFRAME 2.0 description.

0.11595498 = sum of:
  0.052861564 = product of:
    0.21144626 = sum of:
      0.21144626 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21144626 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06309342 = product of:
    0.12618683 = sum of:
      0.12618683 = weight(_text_:q in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12618683 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.11595498 = sum of:
  0.052861564 = product of:
    0.21144626 = sum of:
      0.21144626 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21144626 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.45147216 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = 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)
  0.06309342 = product of:
    0.12618683 = sum of:
      0.12618683 = weight(_text_:q in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12618683 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    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.

0.11084335 = sum of:
  0.021615773 = product of:
    0.086463094 = sum of:
      0.086463094 = weight(_text_:authors in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086463094 = score(doc=578,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08922758 = product of:
    0.17845516 = sum of:
      0.17845516 = weight(_text_:q in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17845516 = score(doc=578,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Rocchio's similarity-based relevance feedback algorithm, one of the most important query reformation methods in information retrieval, is essentially an adaptive learning algorithm from examples in searching for documents represented by a linear classifier. Despite its popularity in various applications, there is little rigorous analysis of its learning complexity in literature. In this article, the authors prove for the first time that the learning complexity of Rocchio's algorithm is O(d + d**2(log d + log n)) over the discretized vector space {0, ... , n - 1 }**d when the inner product similarity measure is used. The upper bound on the learning complexity for searching for documents represented by a monotone linear classifier (q, 0) over {0, ... , n - 1 }d can be improved to, at most, 1 + 2k (n - 1) (log d + log(n - 1)), where k is the number of nonzero components in q. Several lower bounds on the learning complexity are also obtained for Rocchio's algorithm. For example, the authors prove that Rocchio's algorithm has a lower bound Omega((d über 2)log n) on its learning complexity over the Boolean vector space {0,1}**d.

0.107264906 = product of:
  0.21452981 = sum of:
    0.21452981 = sum of:
      0.17845516 = weight(_text_:q in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17845516 = score(doc=5985,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
      0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036074646 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5985, 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=5985)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Continuous knowledge sharing by active users, who are highly active in answering questions, is crucial to the sustenance of social question-and-answer (Q&A) sites. The purpose of this paper is to examine such knowledge sharing considering reason-based elaborate decision and habit-based automated cognitive processes. Design/methodology/approach To verify the research hypotheses, survey data on subjective intentions and web-crawled data on objective behavior are utilized. The sample size is 337 with the response rate of 27.2 percent. Negative binomial and hierarchical linear regressions are used given the skewed distribution of the dependent variable (i.e. the number of answers). Findings Both elaborate decision (linking satisfaction, intentions and continuance behavior) and automated cognitive processes (linking past and continuance behavior) are significant and substitutable. Research limitations/implications By measuring both subjective intentions and objective behavior, it verifies a detailed mechanism linking continuance intentions, past behavior and continuous knowledge sharing. The significant influence of automated cognitive processes implies that online knowledge sharing is habitual for active users. Practical implications Understanding that online knowledge sharing is habitual is imperative to maintaining continuous knowledge sharing by active users. Knowledge sharing trends should be monitored to check if the frequency of sharing decreases. Social Q&A sites should intervene to restore knowledge sharing behavior through personalized incentives. Originality/value This is the first study utilizing both subjective intentions and objective behavior data in the context of online knowledge sharing. It also introduces habit-based automated cognitive processes to this context. This approach extends the current understanding of continuous online knowledge sharing behavior.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.10663034 = sum of:
  0.04891091 = product of:
    0.19564363 = sum of:
      0.19564363 = weight(_text_:authors in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19564363 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 527, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=527)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05771943 = product of:
    0.11543886 = sum of:
      0.11543886 = weight(_text_:22 in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11543886 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 527, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=527)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

OCLC systems and services. 9(1993) no.3, S.20-22

0.10451224 = sum of:
  0.01528466 = product of:
    0.06113864 = sum of:
      0.06113864 = weight(_text_:authors in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06113864 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08922758 = product of:
    0.17845516 = sum of:
      0.17845516 = weight(_text_:q in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17845516 = score(doc=25,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.

0.10451224 = sum of:
  0.01528466 = product of:
    0.06113864 = sum of:
      0.06113864 = weight(_text_:authors in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06113864 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24276656 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08922758 = product of:
    0.17845516 = sum of:
      0.17845516 = weight(_text_:q in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17845516 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34876913 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

0.10064538 = sum of:
  0.08260806 = product of:
    0.33043224 = sum of:
      0.33043224 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.33043224 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.56438076 = queryWeight, product of:
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018037323 = product of:
    0.036074646 = sum of:
      0.036074646 = weight(_text_:22 in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036074646 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05325213 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 193, 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=193)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/%22Hubrich%2C+Jessica%22/docId/703/start/0/rows/20