Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.072028294 = product of:
  0.14405659 = sum of:
    0.040010586 = weight(_text_:computer in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040010586 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.059414867 = weight(_text_:network in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059414867 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.04463114 = product of:
      0.08926228 = sum of:
        0.08926228 = weight(_text_:resources in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08926228 = score(doc=1012,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.5410961 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

In this study, we design an innovative method for answering students' or scholars' academic questions (for a specific scientific publication) by automatically recommending e-learning resources in a cyber-infrastructure-enabled learning environment to enhance the learning experiences of students and scholars. By using information retrieval and metasearch methodologies, different types of referential metadata (related Wikipedia pages, data sets, source code, video lectures, presentation slides, and online tutorials) for an assortment of publications and scientific topics will be automatically retrieved, associated, and ranked (via the language model and the inference network model) to provide easily understandable cyberlearning resources to answer students' questions. We also designed an experimental system to automatically answer students' questions for a specific academic publication and then evaluated the quality of the answers (the recommended resources) using mean reciprocal rank and normalized discounted cumulative gain. After examining preliminary evaluation results and student feedback, we found that cyberlearning resources can provide high-quality and straightforward answers for students' and scholars' questions concerning the content of academic publications.

Theme

Computer Based Training

0.011670183 = product of:
  0.0700211 = sum of:
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=4366,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

An innovative model to measure the influence among scientific journals is developed in this study. This model is based on the path analysis of a journal citation network, and its output is a journal influence matrix that describes the directed influence among all journals. Based on this model, an index of journals' overall influence, the quality-structure index (QSI), is derived. Journal ranking based on QSI has the advantage of accounting for both intrinsic journal quality and the structural position of a journal in a citation network. The QSI also integrates the characteristics of two prevailing streams of journal-assessment measures: those based on bibliometric statistics to approximate intrinsic journal quality, such as the Journal Impact Factor, and those using a journal's structural position based on the PageRank-type of algorithm, such as the Eigenfactor score. Empirical results support our finding that the new index is significantly closer to scholars' subjective perception of journal influence than are the two aforementioned measures. In addition, the journal influence matrix offers a new way to measure two-way influences between any two academic journals, hence establishing a theoretical basis for future scientometrics studies to investigate the knowledge flow within and across research disciplines.

0.011670183 = product of:
  0.0700211 = sum of:
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=3018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The citation relationships between publications, which are significant for assessing the importance of scholarly components within a network, have been used for various scientific applications. Missing citation metadata in scholarly databases, however, create problems for classical citation-based ranking algorithms and challenge the performance of citation-based retrieval systems. In this research, we utilize a two-step citation analysis method to investigate the importance of publications for which citation information is partially missing. First, we calculate the importance of the author and then use his importance to estimate the publication importance for some selected articles. To evaluate this method, we designed a simulation experiment-"random citation-missing"-to test the two-step citation analysis that we carried out with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). In this experiment, we simulated different scenarios in a large-scale scientific digital library, from high-quality citation data, to very poor quality data, The results show that a two-step citation analysis can effectively uncover the importance of publications in different situations. More importantly, we found that the optimized impact from the importance of an author (first step) is exponentially increased when the quality of citation decreases. The findings from this study can further enhance citation-based publication-ranking algorithms for real-world applications.

0.011552892 = product of:
  0.06931735 = sum of:
    0.06931735 = weight(_text_:network in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06931735 = score(doc=3386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests an five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a Naive Bayes (NB) classifier. We focus an the robustness of these methods in dealing with a skewed category distribution, and their performance as function of the training-set category frequency. Our results show that SVM, kNN and LLSF significantly outperform NNet and NB when the number of positive training instances per category are small (less than ten, and that all the methods perform comparably when the categories are sufficiently common (over 300 instances).

0.008252066 = product of:
  0.049512394 = sum of:
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In an increasingly global research landscape, it is important to identify the most prolific researchers in various institutions and their influence on the diffusion of knowledge. Knowledge diffusion within institutions is influenced by not just the status of individual researchers but also the collaborative culture that determines status. There are various methods to measure individual status, but few studies have compared them or explored the possible effects of different cultures on the status measures. In this article, we examine knowledge diffusion within science and technology-oriented research organizations. Using social network analysis metrics to measure individual status in large-scale coauthorship networks, we studied an individual's impact on the recombination of knowledge to produce innovation in nanotechnology. Data from the most productive and high-impact institutions in China (Chinese Academy of Sciences), Russia (Russian Academy of Sciences), and India (Indian Institutes of Technology) were used. We found that boundary-spanning individuals influenced knowledge diffusion in all countries. However, our results also indicate that cultural and institutional differences may influence knowledge diffusion.

0.008252066 = product of:
  0.049512394 = sum of:
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 1044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=1044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 1044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1044)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article, we use innovative full-text citation analysis along with supervised topic modeling and network-analysis algorithms to enhance classical bibliometric analysis and publication/author/venue ranking. By utilizing citation contexts extracted from a large number of full-text publications, each citation or publication is represented by a probability distribution over a set of predefined topics, where each topic is labeled by an author-contributed keyword. We then used publication/citation topic distribution to generate a citation graph with vertex prior and edge transitioning probability distributions. The publication importance score for each given topic is calculated by PageRank with edge and vertex prior distributions. To evaluate this work, we sampled 104 topics (labeled with keywords) in review papers. The cited publications of each review paper are assumed to be "important publications" for the target topic (keyword), and we use these cited publications to validate our topic-ranking result and to compare different publication-ranking lists. Evaluation results show that full-text citation and publication content prior topic distribution, along with the classical PageRank algorithm can significantly enhance bibliometric analysis and scientific publication ranking performance, comparing with term frequency-inverted document frequency (tf-idf), language model, BM25, PageRank, and PageRank + language model (p < .001), for academic information retrieval (IR) systems.

0.0067301076 = product of:
  0.040380646 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=74,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Digital libraries have become one of the most important Web services for information seeking. One of their main drawbacks is their global approach: In general, there is just one interface for all users. One of the key elements in improving user satisfaction in digital libraries is personalization. When considering personalizing factors, cognitive styles have been proved to be one of the relevant parameters that affect information seeking. This justifies the introduction of cognitive style as one of the parameters of a Web personalized service. Nevertheless, this approach has one major drawback: Each user has to run a time-consuming test that determines his or her cognitive style. In this article, we present a study of how different classification systems can be used to automatically identify the cognitive style of a user using the set of interactions with a digital library. These classification systems can be used to automatically personalize, from a cognitive-style point of view, the interaction of the digital library and each of its users.

0.0033266083 = product of:
  0.01995965 = sum of:
    0.01995965 = product of:
      0.0399193 = sum of:
        0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0399193 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The standardization of Chinese materials classification was first proposed in the late-1970s in China. In December 1980, the CCDST, the Chinese Library Association and the Chinese Society for Information Science proposed that the Chinese Library Classification system be adopted as national standard. This marked the beginning of the standardization of Chinese materials classification. Later on, there were many conferences and workshops held and four draft national standards were discussed, those for the Chinese Library Classification systems, the Materials Classification System, the Rules for Thesaurus and Subject Headings, and the rules for Materials Classifying Color Recognition. This article gives a brief review on the historical development of the standardization on Chinese Library Classification. It also discusses its effects on automation, networking and resources sharing and the feasibility of adopting Chinese Library Classification as a National Standard. In addition, the main content of the standardization of materials classification, use of the national standard classification system and variations under the standard system are covered in this article

0.0033266083 = product of:
  0.01995965 = sum of:
    0.01995965 = product of:
      0.0399193 = sum of:
        0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0399193 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.0033266083 = product of:
  0.01995965 = sum of:
    0.01995965 = product of:
      0.0399193 = sum of:
        0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0399193 = score(doc=676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.002551199 = product of:
  0.015307193 = sum of:
    0.015307193 = product of:
      0.030614385 = sum of:
        0.030614385 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030614385 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas