Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Choi, Y."
  1. Choi, Y.; Rasmussen, E.M.: Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history (2002) 0.02
    0.023438577 = product of:
      0.05859644 = sum of:
        0.046528082 = weight(_text_:study in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046528082 = score(doc=2592,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.32130766 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
        0.012068355 = product of:
          0.02413671 = sum of:
            0.02413671 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02413671 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044537213 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A large number of digital images are available and accessible due to recent advances in technology. Since image retrieval systems are designed to meet user information needs, it seems apparent that image retrieval system design and implementation should take into account user-based aspects such as information use patterns and relevance judgments. However, little is known about what criteria users employ when making relevance judgments and which textual representations of the image help them make relevance judgments in their situational context. Thus, this study attempted to investigate the criteria which image users apply when making judgments about the relevance of an image. This research was built on prior work by Barry, Schamber and others which examined relevance criteria for textual and non-textual documents, exploring the extent to which these criteria apply to visual documents and the extent to which new and different criteria apply. Data were collected from unstructured interviews and questionnaires. Quantitative statistical methods were employed to analyze the importance of relevance criteria to see how much each criterion affected the user's judgments. The study involved 38 faculty and graduate students of American history in 1999 in a local setting, using the Library of Congress American memory photo archives. The study found that the user's perception of topicality was still the most important factor across the information-seeking stages. However, the users decided on retrieved items according to a variety of criteria other than topicality. Image quality and clarity was important. Users also searched for relevant images on the basis of title, date, subject descriptors, and notes provided. The conclusions of this study will be useful in image database design to assist users in conducting image searches. This study can be helpful to future relevance studies in information system design and evaluation.
    Date
    15. 8.2004 19:22:19
  2. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02
    0.020747647 = product of:
      0.051869117 = sum of:
        0.036783673 = weight(_text_:study in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036783673 = score(doc=2891,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.25401598 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
        0.015085445 = product of:
          0.03017089 = sum of:
            0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03017089 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044537213 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22