Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018399216 = product of:
  0.036798432 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 6086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=6086,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6086, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6086)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 6086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=6086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 6086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Underground Railroad was a network of people who helped fugitive slaves escape to the North and Canada during the U.S. Civil War period, beginning in about 1831. Quilting was used as a form of information representation (Breneman 2001). This simple classification was designed to relate the symbolic transmission of escape routes and locations of sanctuary. Because it was for use in a children's library, symbolic representations were used to anchor the classes. Symbols are based in the African graphic arts, the Adinkra symbols of Ghana (West African wisdom. 2001), and also from actual quilt practice (Threads of Freedom 2001 and Breneman 2001).

Source

Knowledge organization. 32(2005) no.4, S.141-142

0.013142297 = product of:
  0.026284594 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The rapid growth of the numbers of images and their users as a result of the reduction in cost and increase in efficiency of the creation, storage, manipulation, and transmission of images poses challenges to those who organize and provide access to images. One of these challenges is similarity matching, a key component of current content-based image retrieval systems. Similarity matching often is implemented through similarity measures based on geometric models of similarity whose metric axioms are not satisfied by human similarity judgment data. This study is significant in that it is among the first known to test Tversky's contrast model, which equates the degree of similarity of two stimuli to a linear combination of their common and distinctive features, in the context of image representation and retrieval. Data were collected from 150 participants who performed an image description and a similarity judgment task. Structural equation modeling, correlation, and regression analyses confirmed the relationships between perceived features and similarity of objects hypothesized by Tversky. The results hold implications for future research that will attempt to further test the contrast model and assist designers of image organization and retrieval systems by pointing toward alternative document representations and similarity measures that more closely match human similarity judgments.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1401-1418

0.013142297 = product of:
  0.026284594 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

Source

Knowledge organization. 36(2009) no.4, S.200-213

0.010013623 = product of:
  0.040054493 = sum of:
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=240,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 33(2006) no.1, S.20-34

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.2, S.91-100

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=981,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Semantic annotation of images is an important step to support semantic information extraction and retrieval. However, in a multi-annotator environment, various types of conflicts such as converting, merging, and inference conflicts could arise during the annotation. We devised conflict detection patterns based on different data, ontology at different inference levels and proposed the corresponding automatic conflict resolution strategies. We also constructed a simple annotator model to decide whether to trust a given piece of annotation from a given annotator. Finally, we conducted experiments to compare the performance of the automatic conflict resolution approaches during the annotation of images in the celebrity domain by 62 annotators. The experiments showed that the proposed method improved 3/4 annotation accuracy with respect to a naïve annotation system.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.4, S.1030-1055

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=965)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.3, S.723-728

0.0025614838 = product of:
  0.010245935 = sum of:
    0.010245935 = product of:
      0.02049187 = sum of:
        0.02049187 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02049187 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.2, S.484-502

0.0012874262 = product of:
  0.005149705 = sum of:
    0.005149705 = weight(_text_:information in 4047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005149705 = score(doc=4047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 4047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4047)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information