Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026304178 = product of:
  0.10521671 = sum of:
    0.10521671 = sum of:
      0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068480164 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03673655 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.

Date

11. 9.2004 17:32:22

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We have recently completed a survey of the operational use of hypertext-based information systems in academic, public and special libraries in the UK. A literatur search, questionnaire and both telephone and face-to-face interviews demonstrate that the principle application of hypertext systems is for the implementation of public-access point-of-information systems, which provide guidance to the users of local information resources. In this paper, we describe the principle issuse relating to the design and usage of these systems that were raised in the interviews and that we experienced when using the systems for ourselves. We then present a set of technical recommendations with the intention of helping the developers of future systems, with special attention being given to the need to develop effective methods for system evaluation

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.

0.0050440403 = product of:
  0.020176161 = sum of:
    0.020176161 = product of:
      0.040352322 = sum of:
        0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040352322 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

0.004035232 = product of:
  0.016140928 = sum of:
    0.016140928 = product of:
      0.032281857 = sum of:
        0.032281857 = weight(_text_:methods in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032281857 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Empirical evaluation of knowledge organization (KO) systems, and of the tools and techniques that are used to build systems, is a key component of the system design process: our success in building better systems depends at least partly on our ability to measure the goodness of current systems, and to recognize the factors that affect system performance. The basic evaluative question might be expressed quite simply: How good are the representations or models of the world, of our knowledge of the world, and/ or of expressions of our knowledge of the world - that are produced by our usage of particular KO methods? The straightforwardness of this question is offset by a preliminary need to address metaphysical issues of various kinds, consideration of which can lead us into a quagmire of methodological, epistemological, and ethical problems. What, in this context, is "goodness"? What is the fundamental nature of the kinds of things to be represented? What are the conditions that must be satisfied for a single individual thing to retain its identity over time, and for two individual things to be instances of "the same" kind of thing? Where are the boundaries to be drawn between one thing (or kind of thing) and another? Where does one thing (or kind of thing) stop and another start? How can we come to know the answers to questions about identity, and how we can know when we know? How have we answered questions about identity in different ways at different times and in different places? How ought we to answer questions about identity, and what justifications can we provide in support of our normative claims? As is indicated by the conference organizers' choice of theme for ISKO 2008, designers and evaluators of KO schemes contend on an ongoing basis with issues relating to identity, and a philosophically-informed engagement with such issues is an essential preliminary to understanding evaluation criteria for KO activity. In this talk, the utility for KO of philosophical theories of identity is examined, and motivation is provided for the additional use of such a philosophical framework in evaluating the extent to which KO schemes successfully reflect the cultural identities of their users."

0.004035232 = product of:
  0.016140928 = sum of:
    0.016140928 = product of:
      0.032281857 = sum of:
        0.032281857 = weight(_text_:methods in 3259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032281857 = score(doc=3259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 3259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Empirical evaluation of knowledge organization (KO) systems, and of the tools and techniques that are used to build systems, is a key component of the system design process: our success in building better systems depends at least partly on our ability to measure the goodness of current systems, and to recognize the factors that affect system performance. The basic evaluative question might be expressed quite simply: How good are the representations or models-models of the world, of our knowledge of the world, and/or of expressions of our knowledge of the world-that are produced by our usage of particular KO methods? The straightforwardness of this question is offset by a preliminary need to address metaphysical issues of various kinds, consideration of which can lead us into a quagmire of methodological, epistemological, and ethical problems. What, in this context, is "goodness"? What is the fundamental nature of the kinds of things to be represented? What are the conditions that must be satisfied for a single individual thing to retain its identity over time, and for two individual things to be instances of "the same" kind of thing? Where are the boundaries to be drawn between one thing (or kind of thing) and another? Where does one thing (or kind of thing) stop and another start? How can we come to know the answers to questions about identity, and how we can know when we know? How have we answered questions about identity in different ways at different times and in different places? How ought we to answer questions about identity, and what justifications can we provide in support of our normative claims? As is indicated by the conference organizers' choice of theme for ISKO 2008, designers and evaluators of KO schemes contend on an ongoing basis with issues relating to identity, and a philosophically-informed engagement with such issues is an essential preliminary to understanding evaluation criteria for KO activity. In this talk, the utility for KO of philosophical theories of identity is examined, and motivation is provided for the additional use of such a philosophical framework in evaluating the extent to which KO schemes successfully reflect the cultural identities of their users.

0.0038267244 = product of:
  0.015306897 = sum of:
    0.015306897 = product of:
      0.030613795 = sum of:
        0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030613795 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32