Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018066881 = product of:
  0.072267525 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=2643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Introduction Web search engines and digital libraries usually expect the users to use search terms that most accurately represent their information needs. Finding the most appropriate search terms to represent an information need is an age old problem in information retrieval. Keyword or phrase search may produce good search results as long as the search terms or phrase(s) match those used by the authors and have been chosen for indexing by the concerned information retrieval system. Since this does not always happen, a large number of false drops are produced by information retrieval systems. The retrieval results become worse in very large systems that deal with millions of records, such as the Web search engines and digital libraries. Vocabulary control tools are used to improve the performance of text retrieval systems. Thesauri, the most common type of vocabulary control tool used in information retrieval, appeared in the late fifties, designed for use with the emerging post-coordinate indexing systems of that time. They are used to exert terminology control in indexing, and to aid in searching by allowing the searcher to select appropriate search terms. A large volume of literature exists describing the design features, and experiments with the use, of thesauri in various types of information retrieval systems (see for example, Furnas et.al., 1987; Bates, 1986, 1998; Milstead, 1997, and Shiri et al., 2002).

0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although information retrieval techniques used by Web search engines have improved substantially over the years, the results of Web searches have continued to be represented in simple list-based formats. Although the list-based representation makes it easy to evaluate a single document for relevance, it does not support the users in the broader tasks of manipulating or exploring the search results as they attempt to find a collection of relevant documents. HotMap is a meta-search system that provides a compact visual representation of Web search results at two levels of detail, and it supports interactive exploration via nested sorting of Web search results based on query term frequencies. An evaluation of the search results for a set of vague queries has shown that the re-sorted search results can provide a higher portion of relevant documents among the top search results. User studies show an increase in speed and effectiveness and a reduction in missed documents when comparing HotMap to the list-based representation used by Google. Subjective measures were positive, and users showed a preference for the HotMap interface. These results provide evidence for the utility of next-generation Web search results interfaces that promote interactive search results exploration.

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.

0.011178312 = product of:
  0.044713248 = sum of:
    0.044713248 = weight(_text_:engines in 4276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044713248 = score(doc=4276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.19647488 = fieldWeight in 4276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Advanced technology has resulted in the generation of about one million terabytes of information every year. Ninety-reine percent of this is available in digital format (Keim, 2001). More information will be generated in the next three years than was created during all of previous human history (Keim, 2001). Collecting information is no longer a problem, but extracting value from information collections has become progressively more difficult. Various search engines have been developed to make it easier to locate information of interest, but these work well only for a person who has a specific goal and who understands what and how information is stored. This usually is not the Gase. Visualization was commonly thought of in terms of representing human mental processes (MacEachren, 1991; Miller, 1984). The concept is now associated with the amplification of these mental processes (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman, 1999). Human eyes can process visual cues rapidly, whereas advanced information analysis techniques transform the computer into a powerful means of managing digitized information. Visualization offers a link between these two potent systems, the human eye and the computer (Gershon, Eick, & Card, 1998), helping to identify patterns and to extract insights from large amounts of information. The identification of patterns is important because it may lead to a scientific discovery, an interpretation of clues to solve a crime, the prediction of catastrophic weather, a successful financial investment, or a better understanding of human behavior in a computermediated environment. Visualization technology shows considerable promise for increasing the value of large-scale collections of information, as evidenced by several commercial applications of TreeMap (e.g., http://www.smartmoney.com) and Hyperbolic tree (e.g., http://www.inxight.com) to visualize large-scale hierarchical structures. Although the proliferation of visualization technologies dates from the 1990s where sophisticated hardware and software made increasingly faster generation of graphical objects possible, the role of visual aids in facilitating the construction of mental images has a long history. Visualization has been used to communicate ideas, to monitor trends implicit in data, and to explore large volumes of data for hypothesis generation. Imagine traveling to a strange place without a map, having to memorize physical and chemical properties of an element without Mendeleyev's periodic table, trying to understand the stock market without statistical diagrams, or browsing a collection of documents without interactive visual aids. A collection of information can lose its value simply because of the effort required for exhaustive exploration. Such frustrations can be overcome by visualization.

0.00958141 = product of:
  0.03832564 = sum of:
    0.03832564 = weight(_text_:engines in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03832564 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.16840704 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

User interfaces for digital information discovery often require users to click around and read a lot of text in order to find the text they want to read-a process that is often frustrating and tedious. This is exacerbated because of the limited amount of text that can be displayed on a computer screen. To improve the user experience of computer mediated information discovery, information visualization techniques are applied to the digital library context, while retaining traditional information organization concepts. In this article, the "virtual (book) spine" and the virtual spine viewer are introduced. The virtual spine viewer is an application which allows users to visually explore large information spaces or collections while also allowing users to hone in on individual resources of interest. The virtual spine viewer introduced here is an alpha prototype, presented to promote discussion and further work. Information discovery changed radically with the introduction of computerized library access catalogs, the World Wide Web and its search engines, and online bookstores. Yet few instances of these technologies provide a user experience analogous to walking among well-organized, well-stocked bookshelves-which many people find useful as well as pleasurable. To put it another way, many of us have heard or voiced complaints about the paucity of "online browsing"-but what does this really mean? In traditional information spaces such as libraries, often we can move freely among the books and other resources. When we walk among organized, labeled bookshelves, we get a sense of the information space-we take in clues, perhaps unconsciously, as to the scope of the collection, the currency of resources, the frequency of their use, etc. We also enjoy unexpected discoveries such as finding an interesting resource because library staff deliberately located it near similar resources, or because it was miss-shelved, or because we saw it on a bookshelf on the way to the water fountain.

0.007974556 = product of:
  0.031898223 = sum of:
    0.031898223 = product of:
      0.063796446 = sum of:
        0.063796446 = weight(_text_:programming in 4268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063796446 = score(doc=4268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.21727702 = fieldWeight in 4268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Computers have become our companions in many of the activities we pursue in our life. They assist us, in particular, in searching relevant information that is needed to perform a variety of tasks, from professional usage to personal entertainment. They hold this information in a huge number of heterogeneous sources, either dedicated to a specific user community (e.g., enterprise databases) or maintained for the general public (e.g., websites and digital libraries). Whereas progress in basic information technology is nowadays capable of guaranteeing effective information management, information retrieval and dissemination has become a core issue that needs further accomplishments to achieve user satisfaction. The research communities in databases, information retrieval, information visualization, and human-computer interaction have already largely investigated these domains. However, the technical environment has so dramatically evolved in recent years, inducing a parallel and very significant evolution in user habits and expectations, that new approaches are definitely needed to meet current demand. One of the most evident and significant changes is the human-computer interaction paradigm. Traditional interactions relayed an programming to express user information requirements in formal code and an textual output to convey to users the information extracted by the system. Except for professional data-intensive application frameworks, still in the hands of computer speciahsts, we have basically moved away from this pattern both in terms of expressing information requests and conveying results. The new goal is direct interaction with the final user (the person who is looking for information and is not necessarily familiar with computer technology). The key motto to achieve this is "go visual." The well-known high bandwidth of the human-vision channel allows both recognition and understanding of large quantities of information in no more than a few seconds. Thus, for instance, if the result of an information request can be organized as a visual display, or a sequence of visual displays, the information throughput is immensely superior to the one that can be achieved using textual support. User interaction becomes an iterative query-answer game that very rapidly leads to the desired final result. Conversely, the system can provide efficient visual support for easy query formulation. Displaying a visual representation of the information space, for instance, lets users directly point at the information they are looking for, without any need to be trained into the complex syntax of current query languages. Alternatively, users can navigate in the information space, following visible paths that will lead them to the targeted items. Again, thanks to the visual support, users are able to easily understand how to formulate queries and they are likely to achieve the task more rapidly and less prone to errors than with traditional textual interaction modes.

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 3693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=3693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3693, 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=3693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2010 19:36:46

0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3070, 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=3070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4641, 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=4641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21.12.2018 17:22:13

0.0030343123 = product of:
  0.012137249 = sum of:
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2659, 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=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0030343123 = product of:
  0.012137249 = sum of:
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, 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=1444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0022757342 = product of:
  0.009102937 = sum of:
    0.009102937 = product of:
      0.018205874 = sum of:
        0.018205874 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018205874 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.