Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016956951 = product of:
  0.067827806 = sum of:
    0.067827806 = product of:
      0.13565561 = sum of:
        0.13565561 = weight(_text_:processing in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13565561 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.7156181 = fieldWeight in 2604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 24(1988) no.5, S.577-597

0.014631464 = product of:
  0.058525857 = sum of:
    0.058525857 = weight(_text_:data in 5689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058525857 = score(doc=5689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 5689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5689)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports an evaluation of 3 methods for the expansion of natural language queries in ranked output retrieval systems. The methods are based on term co-occurrence data, on Soundex codes, and on a string similarity measure. Searches for 110 queries in a data base of 26.280 titles and abstracts suggest that there is no significant difference in retrieval effectiveness between any of these methods and unexpanded searches

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper provides an over-view of 2, complementary approaches to the design and implementation of information retrieval systems. The first approach focuses on the algorithms and data structures that are needed to maximise the effectiveness and the efficiency of the searches that can be carried out on text databases, while the second adopts a cognitive approach that focuses on the role of the user and of the knowledge sources involved in information retrieval. The paper argues for an holistic view of information retrieval that is capable of encompassing both of these approaches

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=3574,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 8158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=8158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 8158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8158)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Genetic algorithms are a class of non-deterministic algorithms that derive from Darwinian evolution and that provide good, though not necessarily optimal, solutions to combinatorial problems. We describe their application to the identification of characteristics that occur approximately equifrequently in a database, using two different methods for the creation of the chromosome data structures that lie at the heart of a genetic algortihm. Experiments with files of English and Turkish text suggest that the genetic algorithm developed here can produce results superior to those produced by existing non-deterministic algorithms; however, the results are inferior to those produced by an existing deterministic algorithm

0.008478476 = product of:
  0.033913903 = sum of:
    0.033913903 = product of:
      0.067827806 = sum of:
        0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 5817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067827806 = score(doc=5817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 5817, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.4, S.449-452

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations. Design/methodology/approach - ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets - a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self-citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation - using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database. Findings - ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited and ArticleRank is greatest for the most heavily cited articles in a dataset. Originality/value - This is a novel application of the PageRank algorithm.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

0.005299047 = product of:
  0.021196188 = sum of:
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 5258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=5258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5258, 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=5258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:40:10