Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04762715 = sum of:
  0.021027196 = product of:
    0.084108785 = sum of:
      0.084108785 = weight(_text_:authors in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084108785 = score(doc=4926,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4926, 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=4926)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026599953 = product of:
    0.053199906 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 4926, 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=4926)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The structural, functional, and production views on learning objects influence metadata structure and vocabulary. The authors drew on these views and conducted a literature review and in-depth analysis of 14 learning objects and over 500 components in these learning objects to model the knowledge framework for a learning object ontology. The learning object ontology reported in this article consists of 8 top-level classes, 28 classes at the second level, and 34 at the third level. Except class Learning object, all other classes have the three properties of preferred term, related term, and synonym. To validate the ontology, we conducted a query log analysis that focused an discovering what terms users have used at both conceptual and word levels. The findings show that the main classes in the ontology are either conceptually or linguistically similar to the top terms in the query log data. The authors built an "Exercise Editor" as an informal experiment to test its adoption ability in authoring tools. The main contribution of this project is in the framework for the learning object domain and the methodology used to develop and validate an ontology.

0.021055417 = product of:
  0.042110834 = sum of:
    0.042110834 = product of:
      0.08422167 = sum of:
        0.08422167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08422167 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.015047207 = product of:
  0.030094413 = sum of:
    0.030094413 = product of:
      0.060188826 = sum of:
        0.060188826 = weight(_text_:n in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060188826 = score(doc=4266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.

0.01040793 = product of:
  0.02081586 = sum of:
    0.02081586 = product of:
      0.08326344 = sum of:
        0.08326344 = weight(_text_:authors in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08326344 = score(doc=1593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a study which collected a sample of 846 scientific research papers published in 1992 and tests 3 hypotheses on the relationship between research collaboration and interdisciplinarity. Results showed significant differences in degrees of interdisciplinarity among different levels of collaboration and among different disciplines. Collaboration contributed significantly to the degree of interdisciplinarity in some disciplines and not in others. Uses a survey that asked authors about their form of collaboration, channels of communication and use of information. The survey provides some qualitative explanation for the bibliometrics findings. Discusses the perspective of scientist-scientist interaction, scientist-information interaction and information-information interaction

0.00877309 = product of:
  0.01754618 = sum of:
    0.01754618 = product of:
      0.03509236 = sum of:
        0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03509236 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.0074342364 = product of:
  0.014868473 = sum of:
    0.014868473 = product of:
      0.05947389 = sum of:
        0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05947389 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5054, 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=5054)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As increasing numbers of non-English resources have become available on the Web, the interesting and important issue of how Web users can retrieve documents in different languages has arisen. Cross-language information retrieval (CLIP), the study of retrieving information in one language by queries expressed in another language, is a promising approach to the problem. Cross-language information retrieval has attracted much attention in recent years. Most research systems have achieved satisfactory performance on standard Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) collections such as news articles, but CLIR techniques have not been widely studied and evaluated for applications such as Web portals. In this article, the authors present their research in developing and evaluating a multilingual English-Chinese Web portal that incorporates various CLIP techniques for use in the business domain. A dictionary-based approach was adopted and combines phrasal translation, co-occurrence analysis, and pre- and posttranslation query expansion. The portal was evaluated by domain experts, using a set of queries in both English and Chinese. The experimental results showed that co-occurrence-based phrasal translation achieved a 74.6% improvement in precision over simple word-byword translation. When used together, pre- and posttranslation query expansion improved the performance slightly, achieving a 78.0% improvement over the baseline word-by-word translation approach. In general, applying CLIR techniques in Web applications shows promise.

0.0074342364 = product of:
  0.014868473 = sum of:
    0.014868473 = product of:
      0.05947389 = sum of:
        0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05947389 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1253, 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=1253)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The scientific metadata model proposed in this article encompasses both classical descriptive metadata such as those defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DC) and the innovative structural and referential metadata properties that go beyond the classical model. Structural metadata capture the structural vocabulary in research publications; referential metadata include not only citations but also data about other types of scholarly output that is based on or related to the same publication. The article describes the structural, descriptive, and referential (SDR) elements of the metadata model and explains the underlying assumptions and justifications for each major component in the model. ScholarWiki, an experimental system developed as a proof of concept, was built over the wiki platform to allow user interaction with the metadata and the editing, deleting, and adding of metadata. By allowing and encouraging scholars (both as authors and as users) to participate in the knowledge and metadata editing and enhancing process, the larger community will benefit from more accurate and effective information retrieval. The ScholarWiki system utilizes machine-learning techniques that can automatically produce self-enhanced metadata by learning from the structural metadata that scholars contribute, which will add intelligence to enhance and update automatically the publication of metadata Wiki pages.

0.0070184725 = product of:
  0.014036945 = sum of:
    0.014036945 = product of:
      0.02807389 = sum of:
        0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807389 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35