Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044462394 = product of:
  0.08892479 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.038851015 = product of:
      0.05827652 = sum of:
        0.029269911 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029269911 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.

Date

20. 2.2009 10:29:07

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

0.012518443 = product of:
  0.050073773 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0040903254 = product of:
  0.016361302 = sum of:
    0.016361302 = product of:
      0.049083903 = sum of:
        0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049083903 = score(doc=5245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A cross-level model based on the information processing perspective and trait activation theory was developed and tested in order to investigate the effects of individual-level epistemic motivation and team-level task reflexivity on three different individual contribution behaviors (i.e., adding, deleting, and revising) in the process of knowledge creation on team wikis. Using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling software package and the 2-wave data from 166 individuals in 51 wiki-based teams, we found cross-level interaction effects between individual epistemic motivation and team task reflexivity on different knowledge contribution behaviors on wikis. Epistemic motivation exerted a positive effect on adding, which was strengthened by team task reflexivity. The effect of epistemic motivation on deleting was positive only when task reflexivity was high. In addition, epistemic motivation was strongly positively related to revising, regardless of the level of task reflexivity involved.

0.0034086048 = product of:
  0.013634419 = sum of:
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 4277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=4277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4277)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter reviews research and applications in statistical language modeling for information retrieval (IR), which has emerged within the past several years as a new probabilistic framework for describing information retrieval processes. Generally speaking, statistical language modeling, or more simply language modeling (LM), involves estimating a probability distribution that captures statistical regularities of natural language use. Applied to information retrieval, language modeling refers to the problem of estimating the likelihood that a query and a document could have been generated by the same language model, given the language model of the document either with or without a language model of the query. The roots of statistical language modeling date to the beginning of the twentieth century when Markov tried to model letter sequences in works of Russian literature (Manning & Schütze, 1999). Zipf (1929, 1932, 1949, 1965) studied the statistical properties of text and discovered that the frequency of works decays as a Power function of each works rank. However, it was Shannon's (1951) work that inspired later research in this area. In 1951, eager to explore the applications of his newly founded information theory to human language, Shannon used a prediction game involving n-grams to investigate the information content of English text. He evaluated n-gram models' performance by comparing their crossentropy an texts with the true entropy estimated using predictions made by human subjects. For many years, statistical language models have been used primarily for automatic speech recognition. Since 1980, when the first significant language model was proposed (Rosenfeld, 2000), statistical language modeling has become a fundamental component of speech recognition, machine translation, and spelling correction.

0.0034086048 = product of:
  0.013634419 = sum of:
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=650)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Patient-generated online reviews are well-established as an important source of information for people to evaluate doctors' quality and improve health outcomes. However, how such reviews are generated in the first place is not well examined. This study examines a hitherto unexplored social driver of online review generation-doctors' presence on online health platforms, which results in the reviewers (i.e., patients) and the reviewees (i.e., doctors) coexisting in the same medium. Drawing on the Stimulus-Organism-Response theory as an overarching framework, we advance hypotheses about the impact of doctors' presence on their patients' review behaviors, including review volume, review effort, and emotional expression. To achieve causal identification, we conduct a quasi-experiment on a large online health platform and employ propensity score matching and difference-in-difference estimation. Our findings show that doctors' presence increases their patients' review volume. Furthermore, doctors' presence motivates their patients to exert greater effort and express more positive emotions in the review text. The results also show that the presence of doctors with higher professional titles has a stronger effect on review volume than the presence of doctors with lower professional titles. Our findings offer important implications both for research and practice.

0.002926991 = product of:
  0.011707964 = sum of:
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.10.2000 14:29:26

0.002926991 = product of:
  0.011707964 = sum of:
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3464, 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=3464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 6.2010 9:29:57

0.0024391594 = product of:
  0.009756638 = sum of:
    0.009756638 = product of:
      0.029269911 = sum of:
        0.029269911 = weight(_text_:29 in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029269911 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3961, 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=3961)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 8.2010 13:11:47

0.0024391594 = product of:
  0.009756638 = sum of:
    0.009756638 = product of:
      0.029269911 = sum of:
        0.029269911 = weight(_text_:29 in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029269911 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3018, 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=3018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 6.2016 20:31:29