Search (723 results, page 1 of 37)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ohly, H.P.: Wissenskommunikation und -organisation : Quo vadis? (2010) 0.07 
    0.071107075 = product of:
  0.14221415 = sum of:
    0.14221415 = sum of:
      0.099767864 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099767864 = score(doc=3727,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.49377728 = fieldWeight in 3727, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3727)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 3727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=3727,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3727, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3727)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Dieses Papier diskutiert die allgemeinen Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der Wissenskommunikation. Bereits die Betrachtung der informations- und wissensorganisatorischen Techniken lassen einige Folgerungen für den künftig zu erwartenden Wissensaustausch und seine Formalisierung ziehen. Auch wurden künftige Aspekte der Wissensorganisation und -kommunikation im Rahmen von Panels bei der Deutschen ISKO-Konferenz 2006 in Wien und in 2007 auf der IKONE-Konferenz in Bangalore sowie bei der WissKom 2007 in Jülich diskutiert. Hieraus und aus Betrachtungen zu den neuen medialen Techniken werden Folgerungen für zu erwartende und zu empfehlende künftige Entwicklungen gezogen.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  2. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.07 
    0.071107075 = product of:
  0.14221415 = sum of:
    0.14221415 = sum of:
      0.099767864 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099767864 = score(doc=4309,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.49377728 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.06 
    0.058798738 = product of:
  0.117597476 = sum of:
    0.117597476 = sum of:
      0.0872787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0872787 = score(doc=4540,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.43196514 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:29:22
  4. Petras, V.: Heterogenitätsbehandlung und Terminology Mapping durch Crosskonkordanzen : eine Fallstudie (2010) 0.06 
    0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=3730,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 3730, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3730)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 3730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=3730,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3730, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3730)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Das BMBF hat bis Ende 2007 ein Projekt gefördert, dessen Aufgabe es war, die Erstellung und das Management von Crosskonkordanzen zwischen kontrollierten Vokabularen (Thesauri, Klassifikationen, Deskriptorenlisten) zu organisieren. In drei Jahren wurden 64 Crosskonkordanzen mit mehr als 500.000 Relationen zwischen kontrollierten Vokabularen aus den Sozialwissenschaften und anderen Fachgebieten umgesetzt. In der Schlussphase des Projekts wurde eine umfangreiche Evaluation durchgeführt, die die Effektivität der Crosskonkordanzen in unterschiedlichen Informationssystemen testen sollte. Der Artikel berichtet über die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Heterogenitätsbehandlung durch Crosskonkordanzen und die Ergebnisse der umfangreichen Analysen.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  5. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.06 
    0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  6. Badia, A.: Data, information, knowledge : an information science analysis (2014) 0.06 
    0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.
    Date
    16. 6.2014 19:22:57
  7. Lösse, M.; Svensson, L.: "Classification at a Crossroad" : Internationales UDC-Seminar 2009 in Den Haag, Niederlande (2010) 0.06 
    0.05596056 = product of:
  0.11192112 = sum of:
    0.11192112 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.051452663 = weight(_text_:22 in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051452663 = score(doc=4379,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Am 29. und 30. Oktober 2009 fand in der Königlichen Bibliothek in Den Haag das zweite internationale UDC-Seminar zum Thema "Classification at a Crossroad" statt. Organisiert wurde diese Konferenz - wie auch die erste Konferenz dieser Art im Jahr 2007 - vom UDC-Konsortium (UDCC). Im Mittelpunkt der diesjährigen Veranstaltung stand die Erschließung des World Wide Web unter besserer Nutzung von Klassifikationen (im Besonderen natürlich der UDC), einschließlich benutzerfreundlicher Repräsentationen von Informationen und Wissen. Standards, neue Technologien und Dienste, semantische Suche und der multilinguale Zugriff spielten ebenfalls eine Rolle. 135 Teilnehmer aus 35 Ländern waren dazu nach Den Haag gekommen. Das Programm umfasste mit 22 Vorträgen aus 14 verschiedenen Ländern eine breite Palette, wobei Großbritannien mit fünf Beiträgen am stärksten vertreten war. Die Tagesschwerpunkte wurden an beiden Konferenztagen durch die Eröffnungsvorträge gesetzt, die dann in insgesamt sechs thematischen Sitzungen weiter vertieft wurden.
    Date
    22. 1.2010 15:06:54
  8. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.05 
    0.053312715 = product of:
  0.10662543 = sum of:
    0.10662543 = product of:
      0.42650172 = sum of:
        0.42650172 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42650172 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  9. Viti, E.: My first ten years : nuovo soggettario growing, development and integration with other knowledge organization systems (2017) 0.05 
    0.050790764 = product of:
  0.10158153 = sum of:
    0.10158153 = sum of:
      0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071262754 = score(doc=4143,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Nuovo Soggettario is a subject indexing system edited by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. It was presented to librarians from across Italy on 8 February 2007 in Florence as a new edition of the Soggettario (1956), and it has become the official Italian subject indexing tool. This system is made up of two individual and interactive components: the general thesaurus, accessible on the web since 2007 and the rules of a conventional syntax for the construction of subject strings. The Nuovo soggettario thesaurus has grown significantly in terms of terminology and connections with other knowledge organization tools (e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, resources of archives and museums, and other information data sets), offering the users the possibility to browse through documents, books, objects, photographs, etc. The conversion of the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus into formats suitable for the semantic web and linked data world improves its function as an interlinking hub for direct searching and for organizing content by different professional communities. Thanks to structured data and the SKOS format, the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus is published on the Data Hub platform, thus giving broad visibility to the BNCF and its precious patrimony.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.
  10. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.05 
    0.04842549 = product of:
  0.09685098 = sum of:
    0.09685098 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036382522 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  11. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.04 
    0.044427264 = product of:
  0.08885453 = sum of:
    0.08885453 = product of:
      0.35541812 = sum of:
        0.35541812 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35541812 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = 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)
  0.5 = 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
  12. Euzenat, J.; Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching (2010) 0.04 
    0.04063261 = product of:
  0.08126522 = sum of:
    0.08126522 = sum of:
      0.057010204 = weight(_text_:2007 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057010204 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.28215843 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.024255017 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024255017 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Classification
    TK5105.88815 .E99 2007
    Date
    20. 6.2012 19:08:22
    LCC
    TK5105.88815 .E99 2007
  13. Hümmer, C.: TELOTA - Aspekte eines Wissensportals für geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung (2010) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=3745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 3745, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3745)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 3745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=3745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3745, 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=3745)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    TELOTA (The Electronic Life of the Academy) ist eine Initiative der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, die es sich zur Aufgabe gemacht hat, in verstärktem Maße die Möglichkeiten und Chancen der Informationstechnologie für die Akademie und ihre Forschungsvorhaben zu explorieren und umzusetzen. TELOTA betreut die Akademievorhaben in Hinblick auf die Einführung von elektronischen Arbeits- und Publikationsstrategien und trifft deshalb auf sehr unterschiedliche Bedürfnisse und Ausgangssituationen. Nach einer ersten Projektphase, in der vor allem die Breite der Möglichkeiten des elektronischen Mediums exploriert wurden, widmete sich TELOTA zwischen März 2007 und Dezember 2008 der Entwicklung von projektübergreifenden Lösungen für die Bereiche Digitale Edition, Personendatenbanken und elektronische Wörterbücher. Für die Zukunft gibt es erste Ansätze, die elektronischen Ressourcen der Akademie zu einem vernetzten Wissensportal für geisteswissenschaftliche Grundlagenforschung auszubauen. Aufgaben und Ziele von TELOTA Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Arbeit der TELOTA-Initiative der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW). Auf Initiative der "Arbeitsgruppe elektronisches Publizieren" ins Leben gerufen, widmet sich TELOTA seit 2002 der Aufgabe, moderne Informationstechnologie bewusst, geplant und nachhaltig für die Belange der BBAW nutzbar zu machen. Diese Aufgabe versteht sich sowohl im Sinne eines verstärkten Einsatzes zur Unterstützung des Forschungsprozesses als auch im Sinne einer kostenfreien Online-Präsentation von Daten und Ergebnissen für die interessierte Öffentlichkeit. Darüber hinaus soll die verstärkte "Digitalisierung" der Akademievorhaben auch den wissenschaftlichen Austausch und die Kommunikation unter Fachwissenschaftlern erleichtern und fördern (vgl. den Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe "Elektronisches Publizieren" an den Vorstand 2001). Das Akronym TELOTA steht - zusammenfassend für diese Aufgabengebiete - für "The Electronic Life of the Academy".
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  14. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:20:56
  15. Kless, D.: Erstellung eines allgemeinen Standards zur Wissensorganisation : Nutzen, Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen, Wege (2010) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4422, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4422)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4422, 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=4422)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Zur Organisation und zum besseren Auffinden von Wissen werden häufig verschiedene Typen von Vokabularen verwendet. Aufgrund ihres Ursprungs in unterschiedlichen Communities werden die Vokabulare mit unterschiedlicher Terminologie sowie jeweils eigenen Methoden und Werkzeugen beschrieben und sind, wenn überhaupt, unterschiedlich stark und mit unterschiedlichem Fokus standardisiert. Um dieser Entwicklung zu entgegnen, müssen zum einen die Standards für die verschiedenen Vokabulartypen (weiter-)entwickelt werden und dabei auf gemeinsame, heute allgemein anerkannte Modellierungssprachen (z.B. UML) und XML-basierte Auszeichnungssprachen zurückgreifen. Zum anderen ist ein Meta-Standard nötig, der die Terminologie der verschiedenen Communities aufeinander abbildet und die Vokabulare vergleichbar macht. Dies würde nicht nur die qualifizierte Auswahl eines Vokabulartyps ermöglichen, sondern auch deren gegenseitiges Abbilden (Mappen) und allgemein der Wiederverwendung von Vokabularen nutzen. In Ansätzen wurde diese Strategie im jüngst veröffentlichten britischen Standard BS 8723 verfolgt, dessen Schwerpunkt (weiter) auf Thesauri liegt, der jedoch auch explizit Bezug zu anderen Vokabularen nimmt. Die im April 2007 begonnene Revision des Standards als internationale ISO-Norm 25964 erlaubt weitere, wenn auch vielleicht kleine Schritte hin zu einer langfristigen Vision von allgemeingültigen Standards zur Wissensorganisation.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  16. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
  17. Sammeln - Sichern - Sichten - Sehen (2011) 0.04 
    0.035631377 = product of:
  0.071262754 = sum of:
    0.071262754 = product of:
      0.14252551 = sum of:
        0.14252551 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14252551 = score(doc=3784,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.70539606 = fieldWeight in 3784, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Diese Publikation dokumentiert  die seit 2007 in Schwerte durchgeführten Fachtagungen des AK Filmarchivierung NRW: 2007: http://www.filmarchivierung-nrw.de/doc/tagung07.pdf 2008: http://www.filmarchivierung-nrw.de/doc/tagung08.pdf 2009: http://www.filmarchivierung-nrw.de/doc/tagung09.pdf 2010: http://www.filmarchivierung-nrw.de/doc/ZA1007.pdf .
  18. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: User-generated genre tags through the lens of genre theories (2014) 0.03 
    0.03228366 = product of:
  0.06456732 = sum of:
    0.06456732 = sum of:
      0.0403123 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0403123 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19951613 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.024255017 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024255017 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, 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=1450)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  19. Gödert, W.; Lepsky, K.: Informationelle Kompetenz : ein humanistischer Entwurf (2019) 0.03 
    0.031099085 = product of:
  0.06219817 = sum of:
    0.06219817 = product of:
      0.24879268 = sum of:
        0.24879268 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24879268 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].
  20. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.03 
    0.026656358 = product of:
  0.053312715 = sum of:
    0.053312715 = product of:
      0.21325086 = sum of:
        0.21325086 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21325086 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37943774 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

Authors

Languages

  • e 511
  • d 204
  • a 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 626
  • el 66
  • m 50
  • s 17
  • x 14
  • r 8
  • b 5
  • i 2
  • l 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications