Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028048465 = product of:
  0.05609693 = sum of:
    0.05609693 = product of:
      0.11219386 = sum of:
        0.11219386 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11219386 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.414976 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As the volume and breadth of online information is rapidly increasing, ad hoc search systems become less and less efficient to answer information needs of modern users. To support the growing complexity of search tasks, researchers in the field of information developed and explored a range of approaches that extend the traditional ad hoc retrieval paradigm. Among these approaches, personalized search systems and exploratory search systems attracted many followers. Personalized search explored the power of artificial intelligence techniques to provide tailored search results according to different user interests, contexts, and tasks. In contrast, exploratory search capitalized on the power of human intelligence by providing users with more powerful interfaces to support the search process. As these approaches are not contradictory, we believe that they can re-enforce each other. We argue that the effectiveness of personalized search systems may be increased by allowing users to interact with the system and learn/investigate the problem in order to reach the final goal. We also suggest that an interactive visualization approach could offer a good ground to combine the strong sides of personalized and exploratory search approaches. This paper proposes a specific way to integrate interactive visualization and personalized search and introduces an adaptive visualization based search system Adaptive VIBE that implements it. We tested the effectiveness of Adaptive VIBE and investigated its strengths and weaknesses by conducting a full-scale user study. The results show that Adaptive VIBE can improve the precision and the productivity of the personalized search system while helping users to discover more diverse sets of information.

0.027766563 = product of:
  0.055533126 = sum of:
    0.055533126 = product of:
      0.11106625 = sum of:
        0.11106625 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 3883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11106625 = score(doc=3883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.41080526 = fieldWeight in 3883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Statistics (AI-STATS), JMLR W&CP 5, 2009. S.384-391

0.022762781 = product of:
  0.045525562 = sum of:
    0.045525562 = sum of:
      0.031733215 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031733215 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050899457 = queryNorm
          0.11737293 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.013792347 = weight(_text_:22 in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013792347 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050899457 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 3.2008 19:10:22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.9, S.905-906 (C.A. Badurek): "Visual approaches for knowledge discovery in very large databases are a prime research need for information scientists focused an extracting meaningful information from the ever growing stores of data from a variety of domains, including business, the geosciences, and satellite and medical imagery. This work presents a summary of research efforts in the fields of data mining, knowledge discovery, and data visualization with the goal of aiding the integration of research approaches and techniques from these major fields. The editors, leading computer scientists from academia and industry, present a collection of 32 papers from contributors who are incorporating visualization and data mining techniques through academic research as well application development in industry and government agencies. Information Visualization focuses upon techniques to enhance the natural abilities of humans to visually understand data, in particular, large-scale data sets. It is primarily concerned with developing interactive graphical representations to enable users to more intuitively make sense of multidimensional data as part of the data exploration process. It includes research from computer science, psychology, human-computer interaction, statistics, and information science. Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD) most often refers to the process of mining databases for previously unknown patterns and trends in data. Data mining refers to the particular computational methods or algorithms used in this process. The data mining research field is most related to computational advances in database theory, artificial intelligence and machine learning. This work compiles research summaries from these main research areas in order to provide "a reference work containing the collection of thoughts and ideas of noted researchers from the fields of data mining and data visualization" (p. 8). It addresses these areas in three main sections: the first an data visualization, the second an KDD and model visualization, and the last an using visualization in the knowledge discovery process. The seven chapters of Part One focus upon methodologies and successful techniques from the field of Data Visualization. Hoffman and Grinstein (Chapter 2) give a particularly good overview of the field of data visualization and its potential application to data mining. An introduction to the terminology of data visualization, relation to perceptual and cognitive science, and discussion of the major visualization display techniques are presented. Discussion and illustration explain the usefulness and proper context of such data visualization techniques as scatter plots, 2D and 3D isosurfaces, glyphs, parallel coordinates, and radial coordinate visualizations. Remaining chapters present the need for standardization of visualization methods, discussion of user requirements in the development of tools, and examples of using information visualization in addressing research problems.

0.019432547 = product of:
  0.038865093 = sum of:
    0.038865093 = product of:
      0.07773019 = sum of:
        0.07773019 = weight(_text_:intelligence in 3884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07773019 = score(doc=3884,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2703623 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.2875038 = fieldWeight in 3884, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.10, S.1126-1128 (P.K. Nayar): "How Images Think is an exercise both in philosophical meditation and critical theorizing about media, images, affects, and cognition. Burnett combines the insights of neuroscience with theories of cognition and the computer sciences. He argues that contemporary metaphors - biological or mechanical - about either cognition, images, or computer intelligence severely limit our understanding of the image. He suggests in his introduction that "image" refers to the "complex set of interactions that constitute everyday life in image-worlds" (p. xviii). For Burnett the fact that increasing amounts of intelligence are being programmed into technologies and devices that use images as their main form of interaction and communication-computers, for instance-suggests that images are interfaces, structuring interaction, people, and the environment they share. New technologies are not simply extensions of human abilities and needs-they literally enlarge cultural and social preconceptions of the relationship between body and mind. The flow of information today is part of a continuum, with exceptional events standing as punctuation marks. This flow connects a variety of sources, some of which are continuous - available 24 hours - or "live" and radically alters issues of memory and history. Television and the Internet, notes Burnett, are not simply a simulated world-they are the world, and the distinctions between "natural" and "non-natural" have disappeared. Increasingly, we immerse ourselves in the image, as if we are there. We rarely become conscious of the fact that we are watching images of events-for all perceptioe, cognitive, and interpretive purposes, the image is the event for us. The proximity and distance of viewer from/with the viewed has altered so significantly that the screen is us. However, this is not to suggest that we are simply passive consumers of images. As Burnett points out, painstakingly, issues of creativity are involved in the process of visualization-viewwes generate what they see in the images. This involves the historical moment of viewing-such as viewing images of the WTC bombings-and the act of re-imagining. As Burnett puts it, "the questions about what is pictured and what is real have to do with vantage points [of the viewer] and not necessarily what is in the image" (p. 26). In his second chapter Burnett moves an to a discussion of "imagescapes." Analyzing the analogue-digital programming of images, Burnett uses the concept of "reverie" to describe the viewing experience. The reverie is a "giving in" to the viewing experience, a "state" in which conscious ("I am sitting down an this sofa to watch TV") and unconscious (pleasure, pain, anxiety) processes interact. Meaning emerges in the not-always easy or "clean" process of hybridization. This "enhances" the thinking process beyond the boundaries of either image or subject. Hybridization is the space of intelligence, exchange, and communication.
The sixth chapter looks at this interfacing of humans and machines and begins with a series of questions. The crucial one, to my mind, is this: "Does the distinction between humans and technology contribute to a lack of understanding of the continuous interrelationship and interdependence that exists between humans and all of their creations?" (p. 125) Burnett suggests that to use biological or mechanical views of the computer/mind (the computer as an input/output device) Limits our understanding of the ways in which we interact with machines. He thus points to the role of language, the conversations (including the one we held with machines when we were children) that seem to suggest a wholly different kind of relationship. Peer-to-peer communication (P2P), which is arguably the most widely used exchange mode of images today, is the subject of chapter seven. The issue here is whether P2P affects community building or community destruction. Burnett argues that the trope of community can be used to explore the flow of historical events that make up a continuum-from 17th-century letter writing to e-mail. In the new media-and Burnett uses the example of popular music which can be sampled, and reedited to create new compositions - the interpretive space is more flexible. Private networks can be set up, and the process of information retrieval (about which Burnett has already expended considerable space in the early chapters) involves a lot more of visualization. P2P networks, as Burnett points out, are about information management. They are about the harmony between machines and humans, and constitute a new ecology of communications. Turning to computer games, Burnett looks at the processes of interaction, experience, and reconstruction in simulated artificial life worlds, animations, and video images. For Burnett (like Andrew Darley, 2000 and Richard Doyle, 2003) the interactivity of the new media games suggests a greater degree of engagement with imageworlds. Today many facets of looking, listening, and gazing can be turned into aesthetic forms with the new media. Digital technology literally reanimates the world, as Burnett demonstrates in bis concluding chapter. Burnett concludes that images no longer simply represent the world-they shape our very interaction with it; they become the foundation for our understanding the spaces, places, and historical moments that we inhabit. Burnett concludes his book with the suggestion that intelligence is now a distributed phenomenon (here closely paralleling Katherine Hayles' argument that subjectivity is dispersed through the cybernetic circuit, 1999). There is no one center of information or knowledge. Intersections of human creativity, work, and connectivity "spread" (Burnett's term) "intelligence through the use of mediated devices and images, as well as sounds" (p. 221).
Burnett's work is a useful basic primer an the new media. One of the chief attractions here is his clear language, devoid of the jargon of either computer sciences or advanced critical theory. This makes How Images Think an accessible introduction to digital cultures. Burnett explores the impact of the new technologies an not just image-making but an image-effects, and the ways in which images constitute our ecologies of identity, communication, and subject-hood. While some of the sections seem a little too basic (especially where he speaks about the ways in which we constitute an object as an object of art, see above), especially in the wake of reception theory, it still remains a starting point for those interested in cultural studies of the new media. The Gase Burnett makes out for the transformation of the ways in which we look at images has been strengthened by his attention to the history of this transformation-from photography through television and cinema and now to immersive virtual reality systems. Joseph Koemer (2004) has pointed out that the iconoclasm of early modern Europe actually demonstrates how idolatory was integral to the image-breakers' core belief. As Koerner puts it, "images never go away ... they persist and function by being perpetually destroyed" (p. 12). Burnett, likewise, argues that images in new media are reformed to suit new contexts of meaning-production-even when they appear to be destroyed. Images are recast, and the degree of their realism (or fantasy) heightened or diminished-but they do not "go away." Images do think, but-if I can parse Burnett's entire work-they think with, through, and in human intelligence, emotions, and intuitions. Images are uncanny-they are both us and not-us, ours and not-ours. There is, surprisingly, one factual error. Burnett claims that Myron Kreuger pioneered the term "virtual reality." To the best of my knowledge, it was Jaron Lanier who did so (see Featherstone & Burrows, 1998 [1995], p. 5)."

0.017240435 = product of:
  0.03448087 = sum of:
    0.03448087 = product of:
      0.06896174 = sum of:
        0.06896174 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896174 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.017240435 = product of:
  0.03448087 = sum of:
    0.03448087 = product of:
      0.06896174 = sum of:
        0.06896174 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06896174 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.014628994 = product of:
  0.029257989 = sum of:
    0.029257989 = product of:
      0.058515977 = sum of:
        0.058515977 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058515977 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, 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=3355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.012068303 = product of:
  0.024136607 = sum of:
    0.024136607 = product of:
      0.048273213 = sum of:
        0.048273213 = weight(_text_:22 in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048273213 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2500, 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=2500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:41

0.01034426 = product of:
  0.02068852 = sum of:
    0.02068852 = product of:
      0.04137704 = sum of:
        0.04137704 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137704 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.01034426 = product of:
  0.02068852 = sum of:
    0.02068852 = product of:
      0.04137704 = sum of:
        0.04137704 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137704 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:35:21

0.01034426 = product of:
  0.02068852 = sum of:
    0.02068852 = product of:
      0.04137704 = sum of:
        0.04137704 = weight(_text_:22 in 3693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137704 = score(doc=3693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3693, 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=3693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2010 19:36:46

0.01034426 = product of:
  0.02068852 = sum of:
    0.02068852 = product of:
      0.04137704 = sum of:
        0.04137704 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137704 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.008620217 = product of:
  0.017240435 = sum of:
    0.017240435 = product of:
      0.03448087 = sum of:
        0.03448087 = weight(_text_:22 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448087 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1397, 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=1397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:29:25

0.008620217 = product of:
  0.017240435 = sum of:
    0.017240435 = product of:
      0.03448087 = sum of:
        0.03448087 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448087 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.008620217 = product of:
  0.017240435 = sum of:
    0.017240435 = product of:
      0.03448087 = sum of:
        0.03448087 = weight(_text_:22 in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448087 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3070, 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=3070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008620217 = product of:
  0.017240435 = sum of:
    0.017240435 = product of:
      0.03448087 = sum of:
        0.03448087 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448087 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.008620217 = product of:
  0.017240435 = sum of:
    0.017240435 = product of:
      0.03448087 = sum of:
        0.03448087 = weight(_text_:22 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448087 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4641, 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=4641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21.12.2018 17:22:13

0.0068961736 = product of:
  0.013792347 = sum of:
    0.013792347 = product of:
      0.027584694 = sum of:
        0.027584694 = weight(_text_:22 in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027584694 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2659, 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=2659)
      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

0.0068961736 = product of:
  0.013792347 = sum of:
    0.013792347 = product of:
      0.027584694 = sum of:
        0.027584694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027584694 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, 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=1444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.00517213 = product of:
  0.01034426 = sum of:
    0.01034426 = product of:
      0.02068852 = sum of:
        0.02068852 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02068852 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17824122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050899457 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.