Search (429 results, page 1 of 22)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.21 
    0.20533463 = product of:
  0.2737795 = sum of:
    0.061978623 = product of:
      0.18593587 = sum of:
        0.18593587 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18593587 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39700332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18593587 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18593587 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39700332 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Vorgestellt wird die Konstruktion eines thematisch geordneten Thesaurus auf Basis der Sachschlagwörter der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) unter Nutzung der darin enthaltenen DDC-Notationen. Oberste Ordnungsebene dieses Thesaurus werden die DDC-Sachgruppen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Die Konstruktion des Thesaurus erfolgt regelbasiert unter der Nutzung von Linked Data Prinzipien in einem SPARQL Prozessor. Der Thesaurus dient der automatisierten Gewinnung von Metadaten aus wissenschaftlichen Publikationen mittels eines computerlinguistischen Extraktors. Hierzu werden digitale Volltexte verarbeitet. Dieser ermittelt die gefundenen Schlagwörter über Vergleich der Zeichenfolgen Benennungen im Thesaurus, ordnet die Treffer nach Relevanz im Text und gibt die zugeordne-ten Sachgruppen rangordnend zurück. Die grundlegende Annahme dabei ist, dass die gesuchte Sachgruppe unter den oberen Rängen zurückgegeben wird. In einem dreistufigen Verfahren wird die Leistungsfähigkeit des Verfahrens validiert. Hierzu wird zunächst anhand von Metadaten und Erkenntnissen einer Kurzautopsie ein Goldstandard aus Dokumenten erstellt, die im Online-Katalog der DNB abrufbar sind. Die Dokumente vertei-len sich über 14 der Sachgruppen mit einer Losgröße von jeweils 50 Dokumenten. Sämtliche Dokumente werden mit dem Extraktor erschlossen und die Ergebnisse der Kategorisierung do-kumentiert. Schließlich wird die sich daraus ergebende Retrievalleistung sowohl für eine harte (binäre) Kategorisierung als auch eine rangordnende Rückgabe der Sachgruppen beurteilt.
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  2. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.15 
    0.1487487 = product of:
  0.2974974 = sum of:
    0.07437435 = product of:
      0.22312303 = sum of:
        0.22312303 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22312303 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39700332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22312303 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22312303 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39700332 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  3. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.06 
    0.055452086 = product of:
  0.11090417 = sum of:
    0.088698536 = weight(_text_:data in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088698536 = score(doc=997,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.59902847 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
  4. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.05 
    0.054559413 = product of:
  0.10911883 = sum of:
    0.09325766 = weight(_text_:data in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09325766 = score(doc=106,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.6298187 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32
  5. Palsdottir, A.: Data literacy and management of research data : a prerequisite for the sharing of research data (2021) 0.05 
    0.05375583 = product of:
  0.10751166 = sum of:
    0.09482273 = weight(_text_:data in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482273 = score(doc=183,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.6403884 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  6. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.05 
    0.05082287 = product of:
  0.10164574 = sum of:
    0.08578457 = weight(_text_:data in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08578457 = score(doc=916,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5793489 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
  7. Ilhan, A.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.: Data privacy-related behavior and concerns of activity tracking technology users from Germany and the USA (2021) 0.05 
    0.04882677 = product of:
  0.09765354 = sum of:
    0.08179237 = weight(_text_:data in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08179237 = score(doc=180,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5523875 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  8. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research (2022) 0.05 
    0.047419276 = product of:
  0.09483855 = sum of:
    0.06940313 = weight(_text_:data in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06940313 = score(doc=605,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating the reliability of metrics based on Twitter data. We tracked a set of 37,918 original scholarly tweets mentioning COVID-19-related research daily for 56 days and captured the reasons for the changes in their availability over time. Results show that the proportion of unavailable tweets increased from 1.6 to 2.6% in the time window observed. Of the 1,323 tweets that became unavailable at some point in the period observed, 30.5% became available again afterwards. "Revived" tweets resulted mainly from the unprotecting, reactivating, or unsuspending of users' accounts. Our findings highlight the importance of noting this dynamic nature of Twitter data in altmetric research and testify to the challenges that this poses for the retrieval, processing, and interpretation of Twitter data about scientific papers.
  9. Xiang, R.; Chersoni, E.; Lu, Q.; Huang, C.-R.; Li, W.; Long, Y.: Lexical data augmentation for sentiment analysis (2021) 0.05 
    0.047176752 = product of:
  0.094353504 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=392,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 392, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=392)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 392, 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=392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Machine learning methods, especially deep learning models, have achieved impressive performance in various natural language processing tasks including sentiment analysis. However, deep learning models are more demanding for training data. Data augmentation techniques are widely used to generate new instances based on modifications to existing data or relying on external knowledge bases to address annotated data scarcity, which hinders the full potential of machine learning techniques. This paper presents our work using part-of-speech (POS) focused lexical substitution for data augmentation (PLSDA) to enhance the performance of machine learning algorithms in sentiment analysis. We exploit POS information to identify words to be replaced and investigate different augmentation strategies to find semantically related substitutions when generating new instances. The choice of POS tags as well as a variety of strategies such as semantic-based substitution methods and sampling methods are discussed in detail. Performance evaluation focuses on the comparison between PLSDA and two previous lexical substitution-based data augmentation methods, one of which is thesaurus-based, and the other is lexicon manipulation based. Our approach is tested on five English sentiment analysis benchmarks: SST-2, MR, IMDB, Twitter, and AirRecord. Hyperparameters such as the candidate similarity threshold and number of newly generated instances are optimized. Results show that six classifiers (SVM, LSTM, BiLSTM-AT, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers [BERT], XLNet, and RoBERTa) trained with PLSDA achieve accuracy improvement of more than 0.6% comparing to two previous lexical substitution methods averaged on five benchmarks. Introducing POS constraint and well-designed augmentation strategies can improve the reliability of lexical data augmentation methods. Consequently, PLSDA significantly improves the performance of sentiment analysis algorithms.
  10. Urs, S.R.; Minhaj, M.: Evolution of data science and its education in iSchools : an impressionistic study using curriculum analysis (2023) 0.05 
    0.047176752 = product of:
  0.094353504 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=960,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 960, 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=960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Data Science (DS) has emerged from the shadows of its parents-statistics and computer science-into an independent field since its origin nearly six decades ago. Its evolution and education have taken many sharp turns. We present an impressionistic study of the evolution of DS anchored to Kuhn's four stages of paradigm shifts. First, we construct the landscape of DS based on curriculum analysis of the 32 iSchools across the world offering graduate-level DS programs. Second, we paint the "field" as it emerges from the word frequency patterns, ranking, and clustering of course titles based on text mining. Third, we map the curriculum to the landscape of DS and project the same onto the Edison Data Science Framework (2017) and ACM Data Science Knowledge Areas (2021). Our study shows that the DS programs of iSchools align well with the field and correspond to the Knowledge Areas and skillsets. iSchool's DS curriculums exhibit a bias toward "data visualization" along with machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence; go light on statistics; slanted toward ontologies and health informatics; and surprisingly minimal thrust toward eScience/research data management, which we believe would add a distinctive iSchool flavor to the DS.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special issue on "Data Science in the iField".
  11. Dunsire, G.; Fritz, D.; Fritz, R.: Instructions, interfaces, and interoperable data : the RIMMF experience with RDA revisited (2020) 0.05 
    0.046197 = product of:
  0.092394 = sum of:
    0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06271934 = score(doc=5751,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.029674664 = product of:
      0.05934933 = sum of:
        0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05934933 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.
  12. Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.04 
    0.042462487 = product of:
  0.08492497 = sum of:
    0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06271934 = score(doc=896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, 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=896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    JASIST has in recent years received many submissions reporting data analytics based on "Big Data" of online reviews scraped from various platforms. By outlining major issues in this type of scape-and-report scholarship and providing a set of recommendations, this essay encourages online reviews researchers to look at Big Data with a critical eye and treat online reviews as a sociotechnical "thing" produced within the fabric of sociomaterial life.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:33:53
  13. Tang, X.-B.; Fu, W.-G.; Liu, Y.: Knowledge big graph fusing ontology with property graph : a case study of financial ownership network (2021) 0.04 
    0.039516065 = product of:
  0.07903213 = sum of:
    0.057835944 = weight(_text_:data in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057835944 = score(doc=234,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.39059696 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 234, 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=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The scale of knowledge is growing rapidly in the big data environment, and traditional knowledge organization and services have faced the dilemma of semantic inaccuracy and untimeliness. From a knowledge fusion perspective-combining the precise semantic superiority of traditional ontology with the large-scale graph processing power and the predicate attribute expression ability of property graph-this paper presents an ontology and property graph fusion framework (OPGFF). The fusion process is divided into content layer fusion and constraint layer fusion. The result of the fusion, that is, the knowledge representation model is called knowledge big graph. In addition, this paper applies the knowledge big graph model to the ownership network in the China's financial field and builds a financial ownership knowledge big graph. Furthermore, this paper designs and implements six consistency inference algorithms for finding contradictory data and filling in missing data in the financial ownership knowledge big graph, five of which are completely domain agnostic. The correctness and validity of the algorithms have been experimentally verified with actual data. The fusion OPGFF framework and the implementation method of the knowledge big graph could provide technical reference for big data knowledge organization and services.
  14. Al-Khatib, K.; Ghosa, T.; Hou, Y.; Waard, A. de; Freitag, D.: Argument mining for scholarly document processing : taking stock and looking ahead (2021) 0.04 
    0.03908867 = product of:
  0.07817734 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 568, 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=568)
    0.041966315 = product of:
      0.08393263 = sum of:
        0.08393263 = weight(_text_:processing in 568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08393263 = score(doc=568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.4427661 = fieldWeight in 568, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Argument mining targets structures in natural language related to interpretation and persuasion. Most scholarly discourse involves interpreting experimental evidence and attempting to persuade other scientists to adopt the same conclusions, which could benefit from argument mining techniques. However, While various argument mining studies have addressed student essays and news articles, those that target scientific discourse are still scarce. This paper surveys existing work in argument mining of scholarly discourse, and provides an overview of current models, data, tasks, and applications. We identify a number of key challenges confronting argument mining in the scientific domain, and suggest some possible solutions and future directions.
    Source
    Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing,
  15. Hauff-Hartig, S.: Automatische Transkription von Videos : Fernsehen 3.0: Automatisierte Sentimentanalyse und Zusammenstellung von Kurzvideos mit hohem Aufregungslevel KI-generierte Metadaten: Von der Technologiebeobachtung bis zum produktiven Einsatz (2021) 0.03 
    0.03338095 = product of:
  0.0667619 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Source
    Open Password. 2021, Nr.947 vom 14.07.2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMxOCwiNjczMmIwMzRlMDdmIiwwLDAsMjg4LDFd]
  16. Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021) 0.03 
    0.03338095 = product of:
  0.0667619 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Source
    Open Password. 2021, Nr.925 vom 21.05.2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzI5NSwiZDdlZGY4MTk0NWJhIiwwLDAsMjY1LDFd]
  17. Schrenk, P.: Gesamtnote 1 für Signal - Telegram-Defizite bei Sicherheit und Privatsphäre : Signal und Telegram im Test (2022) 0.03 
    0.03338095 = product of:
  0.0667619 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 486, 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=486)
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2022 14:01:14
    Source
    Open Password. 2022, Nr. 1019 vom 21.01.2022 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM5OSwiYzgwMjA2ZDE4ZWExIiwwLDAsMzYxLDFd]
  18. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.03 
    0.0314639 = product of:
  0.0629278 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 12:00:14
  19. Kang, M.: Dual paths to continuous online knowledge sharing : a repetitive behavior perspective (2020) 0.03 
    0.030330349 = product of:
  0.060660698 = sum of:
    0.04479953 = weight(_text_:data in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479953 = score(doc=5985,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5985, 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=5985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose Continuous knowledge sharing by active users, who are highly active in answering questions, is crucial to the sustenance of social question-and-answer (Q&A) sites. The purpose of this paper is to examine such knowledge sharing considering reason-based elaborate decision and habit-based automated cognitive processes. Design/methodology/approach To verify the research hypotheses, survey data on subjective intentions and web-crawled data on objective behavior are utilized. The sample size is 337 with the response rate of 27.2 percent. Negative binomial and hierarchical linear regressions are used given the skewed distribution of the dependent variable (i.e. the number of answers). Findings Both elaborate decision (linking satisfaction, intentions and continuance behavior) and automated cognitive processes (linking past and continuance behavior) are significant and substitutable. Research limitations/implications By measuring both subjective intentions and objective behavior, it verifies a detailed mechanism linking continuance intentions, past behavior and continuous knowledge sharing. The significant influence of automated cognitive processes implies that online knowledge sharing is habitual for active users. Practical implications Understanding that online knowledge sharing is habitual is imperative to maintaining continuous knowledge sharing by active users. Knowledge sharing trends should be monitored to check if the frequency of sharing decreases. Social Q&A sites should intervene to restore knowledge sharing behavior through personalized incentives. Originality/value This is the first study utilizing both subjective intentions and objective behavior data in the context of online knowledge sharing. It also introduces habit-based automated cognitive processes to this context. This approach extends the current understanding of continuous online knowledge sharing behavior.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Jörs, B.: ¬Ein kleines Fach zwischen "Daten" und "Wissen" II : Anmerkungen zum (virtuellen) "16th International Symposium of Information Science" (ISI 2021", Regensburg) (2021) 0.03 
    0.030330349 = product of:
  0.060660698 = sum of:
    0.04479953 = weight(_text_:data in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479953 = score(doc=330,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.
    Content
    Vgl. auch Teil I: Open Password. 2021, Nr.946 vom 12. Juli 2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMxNSwiM2MwMDJhZWIwZDQ0IiwwLDAsMjg1LDFd].
    Source
    Open Password. 2021, Nr.949 vom 19. Juli 2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMxNywiMTFhMWNiMzkzYzUyIiwwLDAsMjg3LDFd]

Authors

Languages

  • e 343
  • d 85
  • m 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 387
  • el 83
  • m 13
  • p 6
  • s 3
  • x 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications