Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.010823611 = product of:
  0.043294445 = sum of:
    0.043294445 = product of:
      0.08658889 = sum of:
        0.08658889 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08658889 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.010714828 = product of:
  0.042859312 = sum of:
    0.042859312 = product of:
      0.085718624 = sum of:
        0.085718624 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085718624 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.0090230545 = product of:
  0.036092218 = sum of:
    0.036092218 = product of:
      0.072184436 = sum of:
        0.072184436 = weight(_text_:methods in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072184436 = score(doc=2760,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.397302 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.008736535 = product of:
  0.03494614 = sum of:
    0.03494614 = product of:
      0.06989228 = sum of:
        0.06989228 = weight(_text_:methods in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06989228 = score(doc=1909,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.384686 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.

0.0076534487 = product of:
  0.030613795 = sum of:
    0.030613795 = product of:
      0.06122759 = sum of:
        0.06122759 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06122759 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, 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=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.0071333502 = product of:
  0.028533401 = sum of:
    0.028533401 = product of:
      0.057066802 = sum of:
        0.057066802 = weight(_text_:methods in 51) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057066802 = score(doc=51,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 51, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=51)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Multisource web news portals provide various advantages such as richness in news content and an opportunity to follow developments from different perspectives. However, in such environments, news variety and quantity can have an overwhelming effect. New-event detection and topic-tracking studies address this problem. They examine news streams and organize stories according to their events; however, several tracking stories of an event/topic may contain no new information (i.e., no novelty). We study the novelty detection (ND) problem on the tracking news of a particular topic. For this purpose, we build a Turkish ND test collection called BilNov-2005 and propose the usage of three ND methods: a cosine-similarity (CS)-based method, a language-model (LM)-based method, and a cover-coefficient (CC)-based method. For the LM-based ND method, we show that a simpler smoothing approach, Dirichlet smoothing, can have similar performance to a more complex smoothing approach, Shrinkage smoothing. We introduce a baseline that shows the performance of a system with random novelty decisions. In addition, a category-based threshold learning method is used for the first time in ND literature. The experimental results show that the LM-based ND method significantly outperforms the CS- and CC-based methods, and category-based threshold learning achieves promising results when compared to general threshold learning.

0.0070616566 = product of:
  0.028246626 = sum of:
    0.028246626 = product of:
      0.056493253 = sum of:
        0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056493253 = score(doc=696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nowadays, end-users have quick and direct access to massive amount of information available on the Net. However, this information is unorganized expecting users to be able to identify and evaluate it in accordance with their information needs. Subject based information Gateways SBIG, organized collections of networked information, provide users with a catalogue of authoritative Internet resources, which can be searched and/ or browsed. This paper provides an evaluation of one such gateway - the Art, Design, Architecture & Media Gateway ADAM. It provides information on who these users are, how often they use the service, what their reasons for use are, which search methods and services they prefer and what are the advantages and disadvantages of an online information service.

0.0070616566 = product of:
  0.028246626 = sum of:
    0.028246626 = product of:
      0.056493253 = sum of:
        0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056493253 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There has been a recent explosion of interest in digital music libraries. In particular, interactive melody retrieval is a striking example of a search paradigm that differs radically from the standard full-text search. Many different techniques have been proposed for melody matching, but the area lacks standard databases that allow them to be compared on common grounds--and copyright issues have stymied attempts to develop such a corpus. This paper focuses on methods for evaluating different symbolic music matching strategies, and describes a series of experiments that compare and contrast results obtained using three dominant paradigms. Combining two of these paradigms yields a hybrid approach which is shown to have the best overall combination of efficiency and effectiveness.

0.006122759 = product of:
  0.024491036 = sum of:
    0.024491036 = product of:
      0.048982073 = sum of:
        0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048982073 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.006122759 = product of:
  0.024491036 = sum of:
    0.024491036 = product of:
      0.048982073 = sum of:
        0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048982073 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.006122759 = product of:
  0.024491036 = sum of:
    0.024491036 = product of:
      0.048982073 = sum of:
        0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048982073 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16

0.006122759 = product of:
  0.024491036 = sum of:
    0.024491036 = product of:
      0.048982073 = sum of:
        0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048982073 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=2698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2698, 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=2698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports a preliminary analysis of organizational schemes applied by academic libraries worldwide to arrange their electronic resources an their Web-based information gateways. The unsystematic sample consists of 41 academic libraries in 10 countries representing 4 languages, Chinese, English, German, and Spanish. The study reveals a widely accepted practice in applying 6 simplistic methods to organizing online information: by resource type, alphabetical by title, alphabetical by subject (mostly discipline and genre), by vendor/publisher, by broad classification, and random. In addition, it notes a marked difference between libraries in the English-speaking world and those in other countries in that the former present significantly more systematic characteristics.

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3818, 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=3818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Semantic mapping between controlled vocabulary and keywords is the first step towards knowledge-based subject access. This study reports the preliminary result of a semantic mapping experiment for the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM). A total of 3,555 keywords were mapped with 322 concept names in the GEM controlled vocabulary. The preliminary test to 10,000 metadata records presented widely varied sets of results between the mapped and non-mapped data. The paper discussed linguistic and technical problems encountered in the mapping process and raised issues in the representation technologies and methods, which will lead to future study of knowledge-based access to networked information resources.

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2021, 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=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=3393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3393, 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=3393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital Libraries currently face the challenge of integrating many different types of research information (e.g. publications, primary data, expert's profiles, institutional profiles, project information etc.) according to their scientific users' needs. To date no general, integrated model for knowledge organization and retrieval in Digital Libraries exists. This causes the problem of structural and semantic heterogeneity due to the wide range of metadata standards, indexing vocabularies and indexing approaches used for different types of information. The research presented in this paper focuses on areas in which activities are being undertaken in the field of Digital Libraries in order to treat semantic interoperability problems. We present a model for the integrated retrieval of factual and textual data which combines multiple approaches to semantic interoperability und sets them into context. Embedded in the research cycle, traditional content indexing methods for publications meet the newer, but rarely used ontology-based approaches which seem to be better suited for representing complex information like the one contained in survey data. The benefits of our model are (1) easy re-use of available knowledge organisation systems and (2) reduced efforts for domain modelling with ontologies.

0.0054118056 = product of:
  0.021647222 = sum of:
    0.021647222 = product of:
      0.043294445 = sum of:
        0.043294445 = weight(_text_:22 in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043294445 = score(doc=5801,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:22

0.005357414 = product of:
  0.021429656 = sum of:
    0.021429656 = product of:
      0.042859312 = sum of:
        0.042859312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042859312 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54