Search (448 results, page 1 of 23)

0.055533126 = product of:
  0.11106625 = sum of:
    0.11106625 = product of:
      0.2221325 = sum of:
        0.2221325 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 5714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2221325 = score(doc=5714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.8216105 = fieldWeight in 5714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.054963544 = product of:
  0.10992709 = sum of:
    0.10992709 = product of:
      0.21985418 = sum of:
        0.21985418 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21985418 = score(doc=529,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.8131836 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Internet has the potential to become a major strategic information tool for commercial enterprises. many companies, large and small, are already using the Internet to gain an edge in an increasingly competitive business environment, both domestically and internationally. It may well be that the Internet is the next major phase in the evolution of the competitive intelligence function in advanced organizations, especially as commercialization of the network intensifies. Describes an exploratory study of business use of the Internet for competitive intelligence purposes

0.04434851 = product of:
  0.08869702 = sum of:
    0.08869702 = product of:
      0.17739405 = sum of:
        0.17739405 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17739405 = score(doc=142,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.6561346 = fieldWeight in 142, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The World Wide Web presents significant opportunities for business intelligence analysis as it can provide information about a company's external environment and its stakeholders. Traditional business intelligence analysis on the Web has focused on simple keyword searching. Recently, it has been suggested that the incoming links, or backlinks, of a company's Web site (i.e., other Web pages that have a hyperlink pointing to the company of Interest) can provide important insights about the company's "online communities." Although analysis of these communities can provide useful signals for a company and information about its stakeholder groups, the manual analysis process can be very time-consuming for business analysts and consultants. In this article, we present a tool called Redips that automatically integrates backlink meta-searching and text-mining techniques to facilitate users in performing such business intelligence analysis on the Web. The architectural design and implementation of the tool are presented in the article. To evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction of Redips, an experiment was conducted to compare the tool with two popular business Intelligence analysis methods-using backlink search engines and manual browsing. The experiment results showed that Redips was statistically more effective than both benchmark methods (in terms of Recall and F-measure) but required more time in search tasks. In terms of user satisfaction, Redips scored statistically higher than backlink search engines in all five measures used, and also statistically higher than manual browsing in three measures.

0.041222658 = product of:
  0.082445316 = sum of:
    0.082445316 = product of:
      0.16489063 = sum of:
        0.16489063 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16489063 = score(doc=539,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.6098877 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Little research has been reported on how the Internet is being used to source corporate competitive intelligence. An exploratory study was conducted to explore current practice and future potential. A request for participants was posted to business-oriented listservs and Usenet newsgroups. Respondents were sent an open-ended survey which addressed three topics: a) the Internet as a source of competitive edge; b) ways in which the Internet could make their firm mor competitive, and c) security and other usage-related issues from the corporate perspective. Findings suggest that the Internet is being used as a tool for monitoring the external environment, locating distributed experts, engaging in informal know-how trading, and conducting market research. Respondents foresee greater use of the Internet in the context of the competitive intelligence function, and generally have few reservations about using the Internet

0.03966652 = product of:
  0.07933304 = sum of:
    0.07933304 = product of:
      0.15866607 = sum of:
        0.15866607 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15866607 = score(doc=4535,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.58686465 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03966652 = product of:
  0.07933304 = sum of:
    0.07933304 = product of:
      0.15866607 = sum of:
        0.15866607 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15866607 = score(doc=5945,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.58686465 = fieldWeight in 5945, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In using the Internet to solve everyday problems, older adults tend to find fewer correct answers compared to younger adults. Some authors have argued that these differences could be explained by age-related decline. The present study aimed to analyze the relationship between web-searching navigation and users' age, considering the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and frequency of Internet and personal computer use. The intent was to identify differences due to age and not to other variables (that is, cognitive decline, expertise with the tool). Eighteen students (18-30?years) and 18 older adults (60-75?years) took part in the experiment. Inclusion criteria were the frequent use of computers and a web-searching activity; the older adults performed the Mini-Mental State Examination to exclude cognitive impairment. Participants were requested to perform the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2nd ed. to measure their IQ level, and nine everyday web-searching tasks of differing complexity. The results showed that older participants spent more time on solving tasks than younger participants, but with the same accuracy as young people. Furthermore, nonverbal IQ improved performance in terms of time among the older participants. Age did not influence web-searching behavior in users with normal expertise and intelligence.

0.03901065 = product of:
  0.0780213 = sum of:
    0.0780213 = product of:
      0.1560426 = sum of:
        0.1560426 = weight(_text_:22 in 6569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1560426 = score(doc=6569,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 6569, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:50:29

Source

Cogito. 1997, H.1, S.22-23

0.03666868 = product of:
  0.07333736 = sum of:
    0.07333736 = sum of:
      0.05609693 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609693 = score(doc=3224,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050899457 = queryNorm
          0.207488 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
      0.017240435 = weight(_text_:22 in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017240435 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050899457 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Im vergangenen Jahr veröffentlichten die Economist Intelligence Unit - der Wirtschaftsinformationsdienst von der Economist Group - und IBM eine weltweite Vergleichsstudie unter, dem Titel "The -2003 e-learning readiness rankings": In dieser bewerteten sie, in welchem Umfang die 60 grössten Volkswirtschaften E-Learning-Strategien und -Lösungen verfolgen und einsetzen. Die Studie basiert auf Daten der Economist Intelligence Unit, der UNESCO, der Weltbank sowie anderer öffentlicher und privater Organisationen. Beurteilt wurden die Länder dabei nach vier verschiedenen Kategorien. Ermittelt wurde zum einen der Grad der Konnektivität, also in welcher Weise die einzelnen Länder technologische Voraussetzungen wie Breitbandvernetzung und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten zur mobilen Kommunikation beim 'E-Learning zur Verfügung stellen. Zum anderen evaluierten die Verfasser die Leistungsfähigkeit der verschiedenen Länder und warfen dabei etwa einen Blick auf deren Ausbildungssysteme und Angebote des betrieblichen Lernens. In einer dritten Kategorie erfassten die Autoren ferner die Bereitstellung und den Zugang zu Online-Inhalten etwa in Form öffentlicher Datenbanken und Bibliotheken. Schließlich wurde die kulturelle Einstellung zum Thema E-Learning in der Studie erfasst. Die Autoren gingen dabei folgenden Fragen nach: In welcher Weise unterstützen und fördern nationale Einrichtungen E-Learning? In welchen Ländern besitzen Lernprozesse insgesamt einen hohen Stellenwert für die Allgemeinheit? Und wo finden progressive Ideen besonderen Zuspruch? Ausgewertet wurden die Ergebnisse für die vier Einzelbereiche Ausbildung, Unternehmen, staatliche Einrichtungen und Gesellschaft. Deutschland konnte sich innerhalb der Studie mit seinem 17. Rang insgesamt im oberen Mittelfeld platzieren. In den Bereichen Staat und Gesellschaft landete es an 11. Stelle, im Ausbildungsbereich auf dem 16. und in der betrieblichen Ausbildung auf dem 24. Platz. An der Spitze der Studie finden sich neben Schweden Kanada und die USA. Gerade hier sind die technologischen Voraussetzungen für den Einsatz von E-Learning gegeben. Zudem schnitten alle drei' Länder aufgrund ihres allgemein starken Ausbildungssystems, in dem, sie etwa lebenslanges Lernen unterstützen und sich durch ein hohes Ausbildungsniveau auszeichnen, beim Ranking besonders gut ab. Die Studie -legt den Schluss nahe, dass Europa und hier insbesondere die skandinavischen Länder sich im E-Learning-Bereich positiv entwickeln. Die südeuröpäischen Länder widmen sich dem Thema dagegen nur zögerlich und rangieren im europäischen Vergleich eher auf hinteren Plätzen. Aus dem asiatischen Raum haben sich vor allem Süd-Korea (Rang 5) und Singapur (Rang 6) gut aufgestellt.
Bundesweite Förderprogramme und Landesinitiativen zur Verbreitung des computergestützten Lernens in der Aus- und Weiterbildung gaben den Ausschlag für eine Untersuchung des Einsatzes von E-Learning an deutschen Hochschulen. Durchgeführt wurde sie vom Institut für Medien- und Kompetenzforschung und dem Multimedia Kontor Hamburg. Gegründet wurde das Kontor von den staatlichen Hochschulen in Hamburg, die sich in einem gemeinsamen E-Learning-Consortium . zusammengeschlossen hallen. Das Kernergebnis der Studie, an der sich vor allem Hochschulen beteiligt haben, die diese neue Lernform tatsächlich einsetzen, lautet: E-LearnIng ist Bestandteil, aber nicht Alltag in der Hochschule. Danach setzt die Mehrheit von 86 der 95 befragten Hochschulen Computer in Lehrveranstal- tungen ein. Vor allem an großen und staatlichen Einrichtungen werden computergestützte Lernformen angeboten. Bei den Lernangeboten handelt es sich an 63 Hochschulen um Präsenzveranstaltungen mit Online-Unterstützung. Blended-Learning-Arrangements, also allgemein netzgestützte Angebote, und reine Online-Studiengänge werden nur an 40 beziehungsweise 22 Lehrstätten angeboten. Durchschnittlich setzen neun von zehn befragten Hochschulen aktuell E-Learning in ihren Lehrveranstaltungen ein. Ziel der Untersuchung war es auch, zu ermitteln, wie E-Learning-Angebote innerhalb verschiedener Studiengänge genutzt werden. Die Verfasser kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die Differenzierung der E-Learning-Angebote nach Fächergruppen deutliche Schwerpunkte erkennen lässt. So sind Disziplinen mit ausgeprägter Computeraffinität wie Informatik und Ingenieurwissenschaften neben Fächern mit hohen Studierendenzahlen wie etwa Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften klare Vorreiter in der neuen computergestützten Hochschullehre. Im Mittelfeld finden sich dagegen kreativ-gestalterische Studiengänge wie Kunst, Design und Mediengestaltung sowie Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften, aber auch Natur- und Umweltwissenschaften. Für diese lässt sich vermuten, dass aufgrund ihres hohen Praxisanteils der Computer hier nur bedingt zum Einsatz kommen kann. Dass Rechtswissenschaften und Technikstudiengänge auf den hinteren Plätzen rangieren, kann kaum überraschen. Denn hier wird der Computer nur selten als LehrLern-Medium eingesetzt. Anders sieht es aus in den medizinisch-pharmazeutischen Disziplinen. Denn in der Medizinerausbildung und -praxis kommen Computer häufig zum Einsatz. Die niedrigen Einsatzzahlen müssen daher erstaunen. Neben der Ermittlung des Umfangs und der Verteilung auf unterschiedliche Studiengänge analysierten die Autoren die Akzeptanzwerte von E-Learning-Angeboten. Befragt wurden, Hochschulvertreter. Die waren selbst weniger im Hochschulbetrieb eingebunden, sondern bekleideten Leitungspositionen. Rund die Hälfte von ihnen denkt, dass Lehrende gegenüber dem Einsatz von E-Learning-Angeboten positiv eingestellt sind. Jeder Neunte glaubt hingegen an eine Befürwortung klassischer Präsenzveranstaltungen. Eine höhere Akzeptanz vermuten die Befragten dabei bei den Lehrenden von Fachhochschulen. Auch den Studierenden insgesamt werden höhere Akzeptanzwerte bescheinigt. Die Befragten schätzen dabei aber, dass nur bis zu fünf Prozent aller Studierenden gegenwärtig mit E-Learning arbeiten. Die Befragten geben ferner Auskunft darüber, wie sie die Lernergebnisse unter Einsatz neuer Techniken einschätzen. Nur ein Viertel schätzt dabei die Qualität von Prüfungsergebnissen beim E-Learning im Vergleich zu Präsenzveranstaltungen als besser ein. Jeder Zweite kann keinen Qualitätsunterschied ausmachen. Allerdings geht die Hälfte der befragten Hochschulmitarbeiter davon aus, dass die Nutzer den neuen Technologie bis 2007 bessere Eregbnisse in Tests erzielen werden. Entsprechend prognostizieren die Befragten einen Anstieg der studentischen E-Learning-Nutzer innerhalb der nächsten Jahre: Drei von vier Hochschulvertretern kommen zu dem Schluss, dass künftig mehr Studierende mit Hilfe des Computers lernen werden."

0.03448087 = product of:
  0.06896174 = sum of:
    0.06896174 = product of:
      0.13792348 = sum of:
        0.13792348 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13792348 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.03413432 = product of:
  0.06826864 = sum of:
    0.06826864 = product of:
      0.13653728 = sum of:
        0.13653728 = weight(_text_:22 in 8727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13653728 = score(doc=8727,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 8727, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2001 12:22:47

Source

Information outlook. 3(1999) no.2, S.18-22

0.03413432 = product of:
  0.06826864 = sum of:
    0.06826864 = product of:
      0.13653728 = sum of:
        0.13653728 = weight(_text_:22 in 7131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13653728 = score(doc=7131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 7131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 1.1997 12:15:22

Source

Kölner Stadtanzeiger. Nr.69 vom 22/23.3.1997, S.MZ7

0.03413432 = product of:
  0.06826864 = sum of:
    0.06826864 = product of:
      0.13653728 = sum of:
        0.13653728 = weight(_text_:22 in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13653728 = score(doc=44,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 9.1997 19:22:27

Source

Rundfunk und Geschichte. 22(1996) H.2/3, S.184-193

0.033658158 = product of:
  0.067316316 = sum of:
    0.067316316 = product of:
      0.13463263 = sum of:
        0.13463263 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 5487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13463263 = score(doc=5487,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.49797118 = fieldWeight in 5487, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit INSYDER, einem visuell unterstützten Suchsystem im Umfeld der sogenannten Business Intelligence Systeme. Dabei liegt der Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrags in der Erläuterung der Information Retrieval- und Visualisierungsaspekte zur Unterstützung des Suchprozesses im WWW. Vorgestellt wird das Rankingverfahren, das Interaktive Relevance Feedback sowie die Beschreibung der Unterstützung des Benutzers bei der Formulierung der Suchanfrage mittels Visualisierung.

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 6598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=6598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 6598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses different types of quality problems having their roots in the Internet and some possible solutions. Gives a provisional definition of WWW information quality. Presents some of the findings from an empirical survey of Danish academic and business users of the Internet. Concludes that only natural intelligence will be able to cope with the enormous task of filtering and distilling usable and useful information needles from the Internet haystack. Development of new and more efficient tools for the retrieval of quality information is extremely urgent

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 7713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=7713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 7713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes some of the state of the art techniques for online information retrieval over the Internet and provides some guidelines for the design of new intelligent search techniques. Esplains the architectures for the WAIS project, the Archie system, Gopher and the WWW. Presents an intelligent search algorithm and discusses Artificial Intelligence techniques for content based image retrieval using evolutionary programming for feature extraction and object recognition

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gives an overview of information retrieval on the WWW. Discusses the characteristics of the digital library and the WWW. Explains information retrieval problems in the context of the WWW, and outlines the responses of developers of information retrieval systems to this problem. Indicates how WWW search services might be improved through the further exploration of ideas developed in the field of library science and artificial intelligence

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Gale Group (formerly Information Access company) have announced KnowledgeManager, an advanced WWW based workgroup research system that automates the day to day tasks of gathering competitive business intelligence from the Internet. The Gale Group is also integrating Aeneid Web components into its ComputerSelect product to provide industry specific Internet search capabilities. The new product, ComputerSelect Web (CSWeb), provides users with an easy and accurate way of collecting Web content in addition to the highly focused information provided by ComputerSelect

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 5221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=5221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 5221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Develops frameworks to help Internet media designers address end user information presentation preferences by advancing structures for assessing metadata design variables. Design variables are then linked to user cognitive styles. An underlying theme is that artificial intelligence methodologies may be used to help automate the Internet media design process and to provide personalized and customized experiences. User preferences concerning knowledge acquisition in online experiences provide the basis for discussions of cognitive analysis, and are extended into structural implications for media design and interaction

0.031733215 = product of:
  0.06346643 = sum of:
    0.06346643 = product of:
      0.12693286 = sum of:
        0.12693286 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12693286 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.46949172 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027584694 = product of:
  0.05516939 = sum of:
    0.05516939 = product of:
      0.11033878 = sum of:
        0.11033878 = weight(_text_:22 in 4122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11033878 = score(doc=4122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4122, 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=4122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57