Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the online information ecosystem, a content label is an attachment to a piece of content intended to contextualize that content for the viewer. Content labels are information about information, such as fact-checks or sensitive content warnings. Research into content labeling is nascent, but growing; researchers have made strides toward understanding labeling best practices to deal with issues such as disinformation, and misleading content that may affect everything from voting to health. To make this review tractable, we focus on compiling the literature that can contextualize labeling effects and consequences. This review summarizes the central labeling literature, highlights gaps for future research, discusses considerations for social media, and explores definitions toward a taxonomy. Specifically, this article discusses the particulars of content labels, their presentation, and the effects of various labels. The current literature can guide the usage of labels on social media platforms and inform public debate over platform moderation.

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research aimed to investigate the status of children-specific metadata elements in theory (existing literature) and practice (metadata standards and children's digital libraries). Literature reviews as well as two cases, including children's online national libraries of Iran, and Singapore, are used to identify children-specific metadata elements and their application. The results revealed that descriptive metadata types had been mentioned more than analytical, social, and relational types; the DCMI metadata standard, besides LOM and ALTO metadata standards, can be used to develop an application profile for children's library catalogs. Two cases showed that they partially cover children-specific metadata elements, and neither has covered relational metadata elements. A deeper analysis of the children-specific metadata elements suggests that children's catalogs should be semantic and social. The results of this study can be insightful for children's book catalogers and children's book publishers (for marketing purposes).

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The present bibliography comprises research produced as doctoral dissertations and doctoral theses dealing with library cataloging, classification, and metadata. An attempt has been made to cover all the aspects of these topics so as to match the coverage of this bibliography with the scope of the journal, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly.

0.0073936307 = product of:
  0.029574523 = sum of:
    0.029574523 = product of:
      0.059149045 = sum of:
        0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059149045 = score(doc=1030,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Manuscripts are a crucial form of evidence for research into all aspects of premodern European history and culture, and there are numerous databases devoted to describing them in detail. This descriptive information, however, is typically available only in separate data silos based on incompatible data models and user interfaces. As a result, it has been difficult to study manuscripts comprehensively across these various platforms. To address this challenge, a team of manuscript scholars and computer scientists worked to create "Mapping Manuscript Migrations" (MMM), a semantic portal, and a Linked Open Data service. MMM stands as a successful proof of concept for integrating distinct manuscript datasets into a shared platform for research and discovery with the potential for future expansion. This paper will discuss the major products of the MMM project: a unified data model, a repeatable data transformation pipeline, a Linked Open Data knowledge graph, and a Semantic Web portal. It will also examine the crucial importance of an iterative process of multidisciplinary collaboration embedded throughout the project, enabling humanities researchers to shape the development of a digital platform and tools, while also enabling the same researchers to ask more sophisticated and comprehensive research questions of the aggregated data.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A pidgin metadata framework based on the concept of pidgin metadata is proposed to complement the limitations of existing approaches to metadata interoperability and to achieve more reliable metadata interoperability. The framework consists of three layers, with a hierarchical structure, and reflects the semantic and structural characteristics of various metadata. Layer 1 performs both an external function, serving as an anchor for semantic association between metadata elements, and an internal function, providing semantic categories that can encompass detailed elements. Layer 2 is an arbitrary layer composed of substantial elements from existing metadata and performs a function in which different metadata elements describing the same or similar aspects of information resources are associated with the semantic categories of Layer 1. Layer 3 implements the semantic relationships between Layer 1 and Layer 2 through the Resource Description Framework syntax. With this structure, the pidgin metadata framework can establish the criteria for semantic connection between different elements and fully reflect the complexity and heterogeneity among various metadata. Additionally, it is expected to provide a bibliographic environment that can achieve more reliable metadata interoperability than existing approaches by securing the communication between metadata.

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05