Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06725572 = product of:
  0.13451144 = sum of:
    0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048073 = score(doc=671,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.06403072 = product of:
      0.12806144 = sum of:
        0.12806144 = weight(_text_:aspects in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12806144 = score(doc=671,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6116126 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Autonomy, agency, and responsibility -- What can agents reasonably endorse? -- What we informationally owe each other -- Freedom, agency, and information technology -- Epistemic paternalism and social media -- Agency laundering and information technologies -- Democratic obligations and technological threats to legitimacy -- Conclusions and caveats

LCSH

Artificial intelligence / Law and legislation / Moral and ethical aspects
Decision support systems / Moral and ethical aspects
Expert systems (Computer science) / Moral and ethical aspects

Subject

Artificial intelligence / Law and legislation / Moral and ethical aspects
Decision support systems / Moral and ethical aspects
Expert systems (Computer science) / Moral and ethical aspects

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der heutigen Zeit nimmt die Flut an Informationen exponentiell zu. In dieser »Informationsexplosion« entsteht täglich eine unüberschaubare Menge an neuen Informationen im Web: Beispielsweise 430 deutschsprachige Artikel bei Wikipedia, 2,4 Mio. Tweets bei Twitter und 12,2 Mio. Kommentare bei Facebook. Während in Deutschland vor einigen Jahren noch Google als nahezu einzige Suchmaschine beim Zugriff auf Informationen im Web genutzt wurde, nehmen heute die u.a. in Social Media veröffentlichten Meinungen und damit die Vorauswahl sowie Bewertung von Informationen einzelner Experten und Meinungsführer an Bedeutung zu. Aber wie können themenspezifische Informationen nun effizient für konkrete Fragestellungen identifiziert und bedarfsgerecht aufbereitet und visualisiert werden? Diese Studie gibt einen Überblick über semantische Standards und Formate, die Prozesse der semantischen Suche, Methoden und Techniken semantischer Suchsysteme, Komponenten zur Entwicklung semantischer Suchmaschinen sowie den Aufbau bestehender Anwendungen. Die Studie erläutert den prinzipiellen Aufbau semantischer Suchsysteme und stellt Methoden der semantischen Suche vor. Zudem werden Softwarewerkzeuge vorgestellt, mithilfe derer einzelne Funktionalitäten von semantischen Suchmaschinen realisiert werden können. Abschließend erfolgt die Betrachtung bestehender semantischer Suchmaschinen zur Veranschaulichung der Unterschiede der Systeme im Aufbau sowie in der Funktionalität.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4072, 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=4072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2018 17:33:05

0.003138204 = product of:
  0.012552816 = sum of:
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 320, 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=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2007 10:37:38