Search (123 results, page 1 of 7)

0.06151294 = product of:
  0.12302588 = sum of:
    0.12302588 = product of:
      0.24605176 = sum of:
        0.24605176 = weight(_text_:opinion in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24605176 = score(doc=99,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.7520002 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this opinion paper, we frame a discussion on paradigm shift(s) in the field of information. We believe that in this astonishing historical moment of new directions and new opportunities both the existing paradigms and conceptual models in the field of information can benefit from re-examination to stay current with the times. We propose a framework articulating key narratives associated with the why, what, how, and who dimensions to discuss paradigm shift(s). The purpose of this opinion paper is to initiate dialogues on ground-breaking ideas and innovative solutions as well as support research that addresses contemporary challenges in the field of information.

Series

Opinion paper

0.06088999 = product of:
  0.12177998 = sum of:
    0.12177998 = sum of:
      0.09470535 = weight(_text_:opinion in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09470535 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04995828 = queryNorm
          0.28944498 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.02707463 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02707463 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04995828 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.05859595 = product of:
  0.1171919 = sum of:
    0.1171919 = product of:
      0.2343838 = sum of:
        0.2343838 = weight(_text_:opinion in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2343838 = score(doc=12,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.7163398 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We unpack the complexities of the crowdfunder community by identifying different archetypes of crowdfunders funding technology projects on Kickstarter.com. Drawing on the extant literature on innovation adoption and opinion leadership, we propose two dimensions of crowdfunders that capture the heterogeneity in crowdfunders' behavior: opinion leadership and interest specialization of crowdfunders. Using a set of variables representing these two dimensions, our analysis revealed five distinct archetypes of crowdfunders: the Vocal Actives, the Silent Actives, the Focused Enthusiasts, the Trend Followers, and the Star Seekers, who each adopted distinct crowdfunding strategies. We established external and criterion-related validity of the cluster solutions in multiple ways. Our results suggest that the composition of crowdfunders is complex, even within a single platform.

0.05859595 = product of:
  0.1171919 = sum of:
    0.1171919 = product of:
      0.2343838 = sum of:
        0.2343838 = weight(_text_:opinion in 32) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2343838 = score(doc=32,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.7163398 = fieldWeight in 32, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=32)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this opinion paper, we argue that global health crises are also information crises. Using as an example the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, we (a) examine challenges associated with what we term "global information crises"; (b) recommend changes needed for the field of information science to play a leading role in such crises; and (c) propose actionable items for short- and long-term research, education, and practice in information science.

Series

Opinion paper

0.05859595 = product of:
  0.1171919 = sum of:
    0.1171919 = product of:
      0.2343838 = sum of:
        0.2343838 = weight(_text_:opinion in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2343838 = score(doc=542,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.7163398 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This opinion piece takes Google's response to the so-called COVID-19 infodemic, as a starting point to argue for the need to consider societal relevance as a complement to other types of relevance. The authors maintain that if information science wants to be a discipline at the forefront of research on relevance, search engines, and their use, then the information science research community needs to address itself to the challenges and conditions that commercial search engines create in. The article concludes with a tentative list of related research topics.

Series

Opinion paper

0.0502251 = product of:
  0.1004502 = sum of:
    0.1004502 = product of:
      0.2009004 = sum of:
        0.2009004 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2009004 = score(doc=5504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of intelligent machines-digital technologies that feature data-driven forms of customization, learning, and autonomous action-is rapidly growing and will continue to impact many industries and domains. This is consequential for communities of researchers, educators, and practitioners concerned with studying, supporting, and educating information professionals. In the face of new developments in artificial intelligence (AI), the research community faces 3 questions: (a) How is AI becoming part of the world of work? (b) How is the world of work becoming part of AI? and (c) How can the information community help address this topic of Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines (WAIM)? This opinion piece considers these 3 questions by drawing on discussion from an engaging 2019 iConference workshop organized by the NSF supported WAIM research coordination network (note: https://waim.network).

Series

Opinion paper

0.0502251 = product of:
  0.1004502 = sum of:
    0.1004502 = product of:
      0.2009004 = sum of:
        0.2009004 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2009004 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The star-rating mechanism of customer reviews is used universally by the online population to compare and select merchants, movies, products, and services. The consensus opinion from aggregation of star ratings is used as a proxy for item quality. Online reviews are noisy and effective aggregation of star ratings to accurately reflect the "true quality" of products and services is challenging. The mean-rating aggregation model is widely used and other aggregation models are also proposed. These existing aggregation models rely on a large number of reviews to tolerate noise. However, many products rarely have reviews. We propose probabilistic aggregation models for review ratings based on the Dirichlet distribution to combat data sparsity in reviews. We further propose to exploit the "helpfulness" social information and time to filter noisy reviews and effectively aggregate ratings to compute the consensus opinion. Our experiments on an Amazon data set show that our probabilistic aggregation models based on "helpfulness" achieve better performance than the statistical and heuristic baseline approaches.

0.047352675 = product of:
  0.09470535 = sum of:
    0.09470535 = product of:
      0.1894107 = sum of:
        0.1894107 = weight(_text_:opinion in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1894107 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.57888997 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper

0.041433595 = product of:
  0.08286719 = sum of:
    0.08286719 = product of:
      0.16573438 = sum of:
        0.16573438 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16573438 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.50652874 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper

0.039673496 = product of:
  0.07934699 = sum of:
    0.07934699 = product of:
      0.23804097 = sum of:
        0.23804097 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23804097 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42354685 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.035514507 = product of:
  0.071029015 = sum of:
    0.071029015 = product of:
      0.14205803 = sum of:
        0.14205803 = weight(_text_:opinion in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14205803 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper

0.035514507 = product of:
  0.071029015 = sum of:
    0.071029015 = product of:
      0.14205803 = sum of:
        0.14205803 = weight(_text_:opinion in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14205803 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.43416747 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is an emerging technique that caters for semantic orientation and opinion mining. It is increasingly used to analyze online reviews and posts for identifying people's opinions and attitudes to products and events in order to improve business performance of companies and aid to make better organizing strategies of events. This paper presents an innovative approach to combining the outputs of sentiment classifiers under the framework of belief functions. It consists of the formulation of sentiment classifier outputs in the triplet evidence structure and the development of general formulas for combining triplet functions derived from sentiment classification results via three evidential combination rules along with comparative analyses. The empirical studies have been conducted on examining the effectiveness of our method for sentiment classification individually and in combination, and the results demonstrate that the best combined classifiers by our method outperforms the best individual classifiers over five review datasets.

0.033061247 = product of:
  0.066122495 = sum of:
    0.066122495 = product of:
      0.19836748 = sum of:
        0.19836748 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19836748 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42354685 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.033061247 = product of:
  0.066122495 = sum of:
    0.066122495 = product of:
      0.19836748 = sum of:
        0.19836748 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19836748 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42354685 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=5511,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 5511, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 5941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=5941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 5941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a "personal information sphere" for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 64) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=64,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 64, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=64)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media data (SMD) offer researchers new opportunities to leverage those data for their work in broad areas such as public opinion, digital culture, labor trends, and public health. The success of efforts to save SMD for reuse by researchers will depend on aligning data management and archiving practices with evolving norms around the capture, use, sharing, and security of datasets. This paper presents an initial foray into understanding how established practices for managing and preserving data should adapt to demands from researchers who use and reuse SMD, and from people who are subjects in SMD. We examine the data management practices of researchers who use SMD through a survey, and we analyze published articles that used data from Twitter. We discuss how researchers describe their data management practices and how these practices may differ from the management of conventional data types. We explore conceptual, technical, and ethical challenges for data archives based on the similarities and differences between SMD and other types of research data, focusing on the social sciences. Finally, we suggest areas where archives may need to revise policies, practices, and services in order to create secure, persistent, and usable collections of SMD.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Analyzing social media has become a common way for capturing and understanding people's opinions, sentiments, interests, and reactions to ongoing events. Social media has thus become a rich and real-time source for various kinds of public opinion and sentiment studies. According to psychology and neuroscience, human emotions are known to be strongly dependent on sensory perceptions. Although sensation is the most fundamental antecedent of human emotions, prior works have not looked into their relation to emotions based on social media texts. In this paper, we report the results of our study on sensation effects that underlie human emotions as revealed in social media. We focus on the key five types of sensations: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. We first establish a correlation between emotion and sensation in terms of linguistic expressions. Then, in the second part of the paper, we define novel features useful for extracting sensation information from social media. Finally, we design a method to classify texts into ones associated with different types of sensations. The sensation dataset resulting from this research is opened to the public to foster further studies.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For a special library serving its parent organization, the design and use of classification schemes primarily need to support work activities. However, when the Prince Vivadhanajaya Library at the Bank of Thailand decided to open its doors to the public in 2018, the redesign of classification that serves both internal staff work and the public interest became a challenging task. We designed a classification scheme by integrating work centered classification design approach, classification as communication framework and the service design approach. The design process included developing empathy, ideation and implementation and evaluation. As a result, the new classification scheme, including seven main classes and thirty-seven level-one subclasses and twenty-two level-two subclasses, was primarily based on the organization's strategic plans, mapping with JEL Classification Codes, Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The classification scheme also includes geographical code, author cutter number, publication year, volume number and copy number. Follow up interviews with twenty-three participants were conducted two years later to evaluate user experience as well as the staff's opinion of the new classification scheme. The feedback addressed favorable outcomes and challenges to be used for the next iteration of the library service design process.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Opinion paper