Search (365 results, page 1 of 19)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.05 
    0.050934732 = product of:
  0.20373893 = sum of:
    0.050934732 = product of:
      0.1528042 = sum of:
        0.1528042 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1528042 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27188486 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
    0.1528042 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1528042 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27188486 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.04 
    0.04244561 = product of:
  0.16978244 = sum of:
    0.04244561 = product of:
      0.12733683 = sum of:
        0.12733683 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12733683 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27188486 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
    0.12733683 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12733683 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27188486 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  3. Marques Redigolo, F.; Lopes Fujita, M.S.; Gil-Leiva, I.: Guidelines for subject analysis in subject cataloging (2022) 0.03 
    0.034174472 = product of:
  0.091131926 = sum of:
    0.019452421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019452421 = score(doc=736,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 736, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=736)
    0.01315321 = product of:
      0.02630642 = sum of:
        0.02630642 = weight(_text_:29 in 736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02630642 = score(doc=736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 736, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.058526292 = product of:
      0.117052585 = sum of:
        0.117052585 = weight(_text_:manuals in 736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117052585 = score(doc=736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23796216 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.4918958 = fieldWeight in 736, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The representation of information in subject cataloging as a result of subject analysis will depend on the cataloger's prior knowledge, influenced by subjectivity. The subject analysis in cataloging is a central theme of this investigation with the aim to elaborate guidelines for subject analysis in cataloging. For this purpose, how books are cataloged in university libraries has been verified. The Individual Verbal Protocol was applied with catalogers from Brazilian and Spanish University Libraries. Directions for the elements and variables of the subject analysis and procedures for good development were obtained to constitute the Guidelines of Subject Analysis in Cataloging. It is concluded that the guidelines formed by four sections are indicated for incorporation in subject cataloging procedure manuals for the purpose of improving the levels of representation and information retrieval results.
    Date
    29. 9.2022 18:14:27
  4. Womser-Hacker, C.: Informationswissenschaftliche Perspektiven des Information Retrieval (2023) 0.02 
    0.021637395 = product of:
  0.05769972 = sum of:
    0.022924898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022924898 = score(doc=798,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
    0.008786863 = product of:
      0.017573725 = sum of:
        0.017573725 = weight(_text_:system in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017573725 = score(doc=798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02598796 = product of:
      0.05197592 = sum of:
        0.05197592 = weight(_text_:etc in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05197592 = score(doc=798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Mit Information Retrieval (IR) sind in Forschung und Entwicklung in unterschiedlicher Breite und aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mehrere Disziplinen befasst. Die verschiedenen Ausrichtungen sind wichtig, da nur in ihrer Verknüpfung eine Gesamtschau des IR vermittelt werden kann. Die Informatik verfolgt einen stärker systemgetriebenen, technologischen Ansatz des IR und stellt Algorithmen und Implementationen in den Vordergrund, während für die Informationswissenschaft die Benutzer*innen in ihren vielschichtigen Kontexten den Schwerpunkt bilden. Deren Eigenschaften (fachlicher Hintergrund, Domänenzugehörigkeit, Expertise etc.) und Zielsetzungen, die durch das IR verfolgt werden, spielen im Interaktionsprozess zwischen Mensch und System eine zentrale Rolle. Auch wird intensiv der Frage nachgegangen, wie sich Benutzer*innen in diesen Prozessen verhalten und aus welchen Gründen sie verschiedene Systeme in Anspruch nehmen. Da ein Großteil des heutigen Wissens nach wie vor in Texten repräsentiert ist, ist eine weitere Disziplin - nämlich die Computerlinguistik/Sprachtechnologie für das IR von Bedeutung. Zusätzlich kommen aber auch visuelle und auditive Wissensobjekte immer stärker zum Tragen und werden aufgrund ihrer anwachsenden Menge immer wichtiger für das IR. Ein neues Fachgebiet ist die Data Science, die auf altbekannten Konzepten aus Statistik und Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung aufsetzt, auf den Daten operiert und auch traditionelles IR-Wissen für die Zusammenführung von strukturierten Fakten und unstrukturierten Texten nutzt. Hier soll die informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive im Vordergrund stehen.
  5. Liu, J.; Liu, C.: Personalization in text information retrieval : a survey (2020) 0.02 
    0.019448902 = product of:
  0.07779561 = sum of:
    0.033692583 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033692583 = score(doc=5761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5761, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5761)
    0.04410303 = product of:
      0.08820606 = sum of:
        0.08820606 = weight(_text_:etc in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08820606 = score(doc=5761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.50779605 = fieldWeight in 5761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Personalization of information retrieval (PIR) is aimed at tailoring a search toward individual users and user groups by taking account of additional information about users besides their queries. In the past two decades or so, PIR has received extensive attention in both academia and industry. This article surveys the literature of personalization in text retrieval, following a framework for aspects or factors that can be used for personalization. The framework consists of additional information about users that can be explicitly obtained by asking users for their preferences, or implicitly inferred from users' search behaviors. Users' characteristics and contextual factors such as tasks, time, location, etc., can be helpful for personalization. This article also addresses various issues including when to personalize, the evaluation of PIR, privacy, usability, etc. Based on the extensive review, challenges are discussed and directions for future effort are suggested.
  6. Pepper, S.; Arnaud, P.J.L.: Absolutely PHAB : toward a general model of associative relations (2020) 0.02 
    0.016370926 = product of:
  0.065483704 = sum of:
    0.039495744 = sum of:
      0.017573725 = weight(_text_:system in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017573725 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032069415 = queryNorm
          0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.021922018 = weight(_text_:29 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021922018 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032069415 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.02598796 = product of:
      0.05197592 = sum of:
        0.05197592 = weight(_text_:etc in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05197592 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.
  7. Petras, V.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluation im Information Retrieval (2023) 0.02 
    0.016146353 = product of:
  0.06458541 = sum of:
    0.043496937 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043496937 = score(doc=808,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
    0.021088472 = product of:
      0.042176943 = sum of:
        0.042176943 = weight(_text_:system in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042176943 = score(doc=808,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Das Ziel einer Evaluation ist die Überprüfung, ob bzw. in welchem Ausmaß ein Informationssystem die an das System gestellten Anforderungen erfüllt. Informationssysteme können aus verschiedenen Perspektiven evaluiert werden. Für eine ganzheitliche Evaluation (als Synonym wird auch Evaluierung benutzt), die unterschiedliche Qualitätsaspekte betrachtet (z. B. wie gut ein System relevante Dokumente rankt, wie schnell ein System die Suche durchführt, wie die Ergebnispräsentation gestaltet ist oder wie Suchende durch das System geführt werden) und die Erfüllung mehrerer Anforderungen überprüft, empfiehlt es sich, sowohl eine perspektivische als auch methodische Triangulation (d. h. der Einsatz von mehreren Ansätzen zur Qualitätsüberprüfung) vorzunehmen. Im Information Retrieval (IR) konzentriert sich die Evaluation auf die Qualitätseinschätzung der Suchfunktion eines Information-Retrieval-Systems (IRS), wobei oft zwischen systemzentrierter und nutzerzentrierter Evaluation unterschieden wird. Dieses Kapitel setzt den Fokus auf die systemzentrierte Evaluation, während andere Kapitel dieses Handbuchs andere Evaluationsansätze diskutieren (s. Kapitel C 4 Interaktives Information Retrieval, C 7 Cross-Language Information Retrieval und D 1 Information Behavior).
  8. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.02 
    0.015531008 = product of:
  0.062124033 = sum of:
    0.051261626 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051261626 = score(doc=5843,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
    0.010862407 = product of:
      0.021724815 = sum of:
        0.021724815 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021724815 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Bedford, D.: Knowledge architectures : structures and semantics (2021) 0.02 
    0.01540831 = product of:
  0.041088827 = sum of:
    0.018339919 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018339919 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.014058981 = product of:
      0.028117962 = sum of:
        0.028117962 = weight(_text_:system in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028117962 = score(doc=566,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008689926 = product of:
      0.017379852 = sum of:
        0.017379852 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017379852 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Knowledge Architectures reviews traditional approaches to managing information and explains why they need to adapt to support 21st-century information management and discovery. Exploring the rapidly changing environment in which information is being managed and accessed, the book considers how to use knowledge architectures, the basic structures and designs that underlie all of the parts of an effective information system, to best advantage. Drawing on 40 years of work with a variety of organizations, Bedford explains that failure to understand the structure behind any given system can be the difference between an effective solution and a significant and costly failure. Demonstrating that the information user environment has shifted significantly in the past 20 years, the book explains that end users now expect designs and behaviors that are much closer to the way they think, work, and act. Acknowledging how important it is that those responsible for developing an information or knowledge management system understand knowledge structures, the book goes beyond a traditional library science perspective and uses case studies to help translate the abstract and theoretical to the practical and concrete. Explaining the structures in a simple and intuitive way and providing examples that clearly illustrate the challenges faced by a range of different organizations, Knowledge Architectures is essential reading for those studying and working in library and information science, data science, systems development, database design, and search system architecture and engineering.
    Content
    Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
    Subject
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
  10. Chi, Y.; He, D.; Jeng, W.: Laypeople's source selection in online health information-seeking process (2020) 0.01 
    0.014812223 = product of:
  0.03949926 = sum of:
    0.016210351 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016210351 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
    0.012426502 = product of:
      0.024853004 = sum of:
        0.024853004 = weight(_text_:system in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024853004 = score(doc=34,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010862407 = product of:
      0.021724815 = sum of:
        0.021724815 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021724815 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    For laypeople, searching online health information resources can be challenging due to topic complexity and the large number of online sources with differing quality. The goal of this article is to examine, among all the available online sources, which online sources laypeople select to address their health-related information needs, and whether or how much the severity of a health condition influences their selection. Twenty-four participants were recruited individually, and each was asked (using a retrieval system called HIS) to search for information regarding a severe health condition and a mild health condition, respectively. The selected online health information sources were automatically captured by the HIS system and classified at both the website and webpage levels. Participants' selection behavior patterns were then plotted across the whole information-seeking process. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's source selection fluctuates during the health information-seeking process, and also varies by the severity of health conditions. This study reveals laypeople's real usage of different types of online health information sources, and engenders implications to the design of search engines, as well as the development of health literacy programs.
    Date
    12.11.2020 13:22:09
  11. Shieh, J.: PCC's work on URIs in MARC (2020) 0.01 
    0.014779588 = product of:
  0.059118353 = sum of:
    0.017537614 = product of:
      0.03507523 = sum of:
        0.03507523 = weight(_text_:29 in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03507523 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.041580737 = product of:
      0.08316147 = sum of:
        0.08316147 = weight(_text_:etc in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08316147 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.47875473 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.
    Date
    2. 2.2021 18:29:15
  12. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.01 
    0.013351655 = product of:
  0.05340662 = sum of:
    0.04244561 = product of:
      0.12733683 = sum of:
        0.12733683 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12733683 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27188486 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010961009 = product of:
      0.021922018 = sum of:
        0.021922018 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021922018 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  13. Qi, Q.; Hessen, D.J.; Heijden, P.G.M. van der: Improving information retrieval through correspondenceanalysis instead of latent semantic analysis (2023) 0.01 
    0.013014513 = product of:
  0.052058052 = sum of:
    0.038904842 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038904842 = score(doc=1045,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
    0.01315321 = product of:
      0.02630642 = sum of:
        0.02630642 = weight(_text_:29 in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02630642 = score(doc=1045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The initial dimensions extracted by latent semantic analysis (LSA) of a document-term matrixhave been shown to mainly display marginal effects, which are irrelevant for informationretrieval. To improve the performance of LSA, usually the elements of the raw document-term matrix are weighted and the weighting exponent of singular values can be adjusted.An alternative information retrieval technique that ignores the marginal effects is correspon-dence analysis (CA). In this paper, the information retrieval performance of LSA and CA isempirically compared. Moreover, it is explored whether the two weightings also improve theperformance of CA. The results for four empirical datasets show that CA always performsbetter than LSA. Weighting the elements of the raw data matrix can improve CA; however,it is data dependent and the improvement is small. Adjusting the singular value weightingexponent often improves the performance of CA; however, the extent of the improvementdepends on the dataset and the number of dimensions. (PDF) Improving information retrieval through correspondence analysis instead of latent semantic analysis.
    Date
    15. 9.2023 12:28:29
  14. Zeynali-Tazehkandi, M.; Nowkarizi, M.: ¬ A dialectical approach to search engine evaluation (2020) 0.01 
    0.012988934 = product of:
  0.051955737 = sum of:
    0.033692583 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033692583 = score(doc=185,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
    0.018263152 = product of:
      0.036526304 = sum of:
        0.036526304 = weight(_text_:system in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036526304 = score(doc=185,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Evaluation of information retrieval systems is a fundamental topic in Library and Information Science. The aim of this paper is to connect the system-oriented and the user-oriented approaches to relevant philosophical schools. By reviewing the related literature, it was found that the evaluation of information retrieval systems is successful if it benefits from both system-oriented and user-oriented approaches (composite). The system-oriented approach is rooted in Parmenides' philosophy of stability (immovable) which Plato accepts and attributes to the world of forms; the user-oriented approach is rooted in Heraclitus' flux philosophy (motion) which Plato defers and attributes to the tangible world. Thus, using Plato's theory is a comprehensive approach for recognizing the concept of relevance. The theoretical and philosophical foundations determine the type of research methods and techniques. Therefore, Plato's dialectical method is an appropriate composite method for evaluating information retrieval systems.
  15. Thomas, I.S.; Wang, J.; GPT-3: Was euch zu Menschen macht : Antworten einer künstlichen Intelligenz auf die großen Fragen des Lebens (2022) 0.01 
    0.011084691 = product of:
  0.044338763 = sum of:
    0.01315321 = product of:
      0.02630642 = sum of:
        0.02630642 = weight(_text_:29 in 878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02630642 = score(doc=878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031185552 = product of:
      0.062371105 = sum of:
        0.062371105 = weight(_text_:etc in 878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062371105 = score(doc=878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Das erste durch KI verfasste Weisheitsbuch. »Die Künstliche Intelligenz sieht den Menschen, wie er ist. Es gibt für sie keinen Gott, keine Rituale, keinen Himmel, keine Hölle, keine Engel. Es gibt für sie nur empfindsame Wesen.« GPT-3. Dieses Buch enthält Weisheitstexte, die durch die modernste KI im Bereich der Spracherkennung verfasst wurden. Es ist die GPT-3, die durch die Technikerin Jasmine Wang gesteuert wird. Die originären Texte von GPT-3 werden von dem international bekannten Dichter Iain S. Thomas kuratiert. Die Basis von GPT-3 reicht von den Weisheitsbücher der Menschheit bis hin zu modernen Texten. GPT-3 antwortet auf Fragen wie: Was macht den Mensch zum Menschen? Was bedeutet es zu lieben? Wie führen wir ein erfülltes Leben? etc. und ist in der Lage, eigene Sätze zu kreieren. So wird eine zeitgenössische und noch nie dagewesene Erforschung von Sinn und Spiritualität geschaffen, die zu einem neuen Verständnis dessen inspiriert, was uns zu Menschen macht.
    Date
    7. 1.2023 18:41:29
  16. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.01 
    0.010136192 = product of:
  0.040544767 = sum of:
    0.027509877 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027509877 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.013034889 = product of:
      0.026069777 = sum of:
        0.026069777 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026069777 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
  17. Zaitseva, E.M.: Developing linguistic tools of thematic search in library information systems (2023) 0.01 
    0.010125914 = product of:
  0.040503655 = sum of:
    0.028077152 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028077152 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
    0.012426502 = product of:
      0.024853004 = sum of:
        0.024853004 = weight(_text_:system in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024853004 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Within the R&D program "Information support of research by scientists and specialists on the basis of RNPLS&T Open Archive - the system of scientific knowledge aggregation", the RNPLS&T analyzes the use of linguistic tools of thematic search in the modern library information systems and the prospects for their development. The author defines the key common characteristics of e-catalogs of the largest Russian libraries revealed at the first stage of the analysis. Based on the specified common characteristics and detailed comparison analysis, the author outlines and substantiates the vectors for enhancing search inter faces of e-catalogs. The focus is made on linguistic tools of thematic search in library information systems; the key vectors are suggested: use of thematic search at different search levels with the clear-cut level differentiation; use of combined functionality within thematic search system; implementation of classification search in all e-catalogs; hierarchical representation of classifications; use of the matching systems for classification information retrieval languages, and in the long term classification and verbal information retrieval languages, and various verbal information retrieval languages. The author formulates practical recommendations to improve thematic search in library information systems.
  18. Kleineberg, M.: Klassifikation (2023) 0.01 
    0.010022898 = product of:
  0.040091593 = sum of:
    0.02269449 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02269449 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
    0.017397102 = product of:
      0.034794204 = sum of:
        0.034794204 = weight(_text_:system in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034794204 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.
  19. Das, S.; Naskar, D.; Roy, S.: Reorganizing educational institutional domain using faceted ontological principles (2022) 0.01 
    0.009998886 = product of:
  0.039995544 = sum of:
    0.025936563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025936563 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
    0.014058981 = product of:
      0.028117962 = sum of:
        0.028117962 = weight(_text_:system in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028117962 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this work is to find out how different library classification systems and linguistic ontologies arrange a particular domain of interest and what are the limitations for information retrieval. We use knowledge representation techniques and languages for construction of a domain specific ontology. This ontology would help not only in problem solving, but it would demonstrate the ease with which complex queries can be handled using principles of domain ontology, thereby facilitating better information retrieval. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as, Identification of the terminology, Analysis, Synthesis, Standardization and Ordering. Firstly, for purposes of conceptualization OntoUML has been used which is a well-founded and established language for Ontology driven Conceptual Modelling. Phase transformation of "the same mode" has been subsequently obtained by OWL-DL using Protégé software. The final OWL ontology contains a total of around 232 axioms. These axioms comprise 148 logical axioms, 76 declaration axioms and 43 classes. These axioms glue together classes, properties and data types as well as a constraint. Such data clustering cannot be achieved through general use of simple classification schemes. Hence it has been observed and established that domain ontology using faceted principles provide better information retrieval with enhanced precision. This ontology should be seen not only as an alternative of the existing classification system but as a Knowledge Base (KB) system which can handle complex queries well, which is the ultimate purpose of any classification system or indexing system. In this paper, we try to understand how ontology-based information retrieval systems can prove its utility as a useful tool in the field of library science with a particular focus on the education domain.
  20. Fuhr, N.: Modelle im Information Retrieval (2023) 0.01 
    0.00975954 = product of:
  0.03903816 = sum of:
    0.028077152 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028077152 = score(doc=800,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
    0.010961009 = product of:
      0.021922018 = sum of:
        0.021922018 = weight(_text_:29 in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021922018 = score(doc=800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Information-Retrieval-Modelle -(IR-Modelle) spezifizieren, wie zu einer gegebenen Anfrage die Antwortdokumente aus einer Dokumentenkollektion bestimmt werden. Ausgangsbasis jedes Modells sind dabei zunächst bestimmte Annahmen über die Wissensrepräsentation (s. Teil B Methoden und Systeme der Inhaltserschließung) von Fragen und Dokumenten. Hier bezeichnen wir die Elemente dieser Repräsentationen als Terme, wobei es aus der Sicht des Modells egal ist, wie diese Terme aus dem Dokument (und analog aus der von Benutzenden eingegebenen Anfrage) abgeleitet werden: Bei Texten werden hierzu häufig computerlinguistische Methoden eingesetzt, aber auch komplexere automatische oder manuelle Erschließungsverfahren können zur Anwendung kommen. Repräsentationen besitzen ferner eine bestimmte Struktur. Ein Dokument wird meist als Menge oder Multimenge von Termen aufgefasst, wobei im zweiten Fall das Mehrfachvorkommen berücksichtigt wird. Diese Dokumentrepräsentation wird wiederum auf eine sogenannte Dokumentbeschreibung abgebildet, in der die einzelnen Terme gewichtet sein können. Im Folgenden unterscheiden wir nur zwischen ungewichteter (Gewicht eines Terms ist entweder 0 oder 1) und gewichteter Indexierung (das Gewicht ist eine nichtnegative reelle Zahl). Analog dazu gibt es eine Fragerepräsentation; legt man eine natürlichsprachige Anfrage zugrunde, so kann man die o. g. Verfahren für Dokumenttexte anwenden. Alternativ werden auch grafische oder formale Anfragesprachen verwendet, wobei aus Sicht der Modelle insbesondere deren logische Struktur (etwa beim Booleschen Retrieval) relevant ist. Die Fragerepräsentation wird dann in eine Fragebeschreibung überführt.
    Date
    24.11.2022 17:20:29

Authors

Languages

  • e 263
  • d 96
  • pt 4
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 333
  • el 65
  • m 10
  • p 8
  • s 2
  • x 2
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications