Search (326 results, page 1 of 17)

0.07052976 = product of:
  0.14105952 = sum of:
    0.12737681 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12737681 = score(doc=1166,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.56992316 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.013682708 = product of:
      0.041048124 = sum of:
        0.041048124 = weight(_text_:29 in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041048124 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Faceted search is a powerful tool that enables searchers to easily and intuitively take advantage of controlled vocabularies and structured metadata. Faceted search has been widely implemented in library discovery interfaces and has provided many benefits to library users. The effectiveness of facets in library catalogs depends on a complex interaction between facet vocabularies, metadata quality and structure, and the library discovery interface's capabilities. This article provides a holistic overview of challenges for optimally implementing facets in library catalogs. This supports a systematic approach to refining and enhancing the capacity of faceted search to improve searching and exploring bibliographic metadata.

Date

22.11.2023 19:01:29

0.06890999 = product of:
  0.13781998 = sum of:
    0.12737681 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12737681 = score(doc=5751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.56992316 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.010443161 = product of:
      0.031329483 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.

0.035897203 = product of:
  0.071794406 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
    0.007459401 = product of:
      0.022378203 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Computer users spend time every day interacting with digital files and folders, including downloading, moving, naming, navigating to, searching for, sharing, and deleting them. Such file management has been the focus of many studies across various fields, but has not been explicitly acknowledged nor made the focus of dedicated review. In this article we present the first dedicated review of this topic and its research, synthesizing more than 230 publications from various research domains to establish what is known and what remains to be investigated, particularly by examining the common motivations, methods, and findings evinced by the previously furcate body of work. We find three typical research motivations in the literature reviewed: understanding how and why users store, organize, retrieve, and share files and folders, understanding factors that determine their behavior, and attempting to improve the user experience through novel interfaces and information services. Relevant conceptual frameworks and approaches to designing and testing systems are described, and open research challenges and the significance for other research areas are discussed. We conclude that file management is a ubiquitous, challenging, and relatively unsupported activity that invites and has received attention from several disciplines and has broad importance for topics across information science.

0.035897203 = product of:
  0.071794406 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
    0.007459401 = product of:
      0.022378203 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

0.03342945 = product of:
  0.1337178 = sum of:
    0.1337178 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1337178 = score(doc=644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.59829473 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While the search interfaces used by common academic digital libraries provide easy access to a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, their interfaces provide little support for exploratory browsing. When faced with a complex search task (such as one that requires knowledge discovery), exploratory browsing is an important first step in an exploratory search process. To more effectively support exploratory browsing, we have designed and implemented a novel academic digital library search interface (KLink Search) with two new features: visually linked keywords and an interactive workspace. To study the potential value of these features, we have conducted a controlled laboratory study with 32 participants, comparing KLink Search to a baseline digital library search interface modeled after that used by IEEE Xplore. Based on subjective opinions, objective performance, and behavioral data, we show the value of adding lightweight visual and interactive features to academic digital library search interfaces to support exploratory browsing.

0.033271596 = product of:
  0.06654319 = sum of:
    0.056769826 = product of:
      0.17030947 = sum of:
        0.17030947 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17030947 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36363843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
    0.009773364 = product of:
      0.029320091 = sum of:
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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."

0.022745859 = product of:
  0.090983436 = sum of:
    0.090983436 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090983436 = score(doc=619,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.40708798 = fieldWeight in 619, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=619)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a contribution to the study of bibliographic corpora through science mapping. From a graph representation of documents and their textual dimension, stochastic block models can provide a simultaneous clustering of documents and words that we call a domain-topic model. Previous work investigated the resulting topics, or word clusters, while ours focuses on the study of the document clusters we call domains. To enable the description and interactive navigation of domains, we introduce measures and interfaces that consider the structure of the model to relate both types of clusters. We then present a procedure that extends the block model to cluster metadata attributes of documents, which we call a domain-chained model, noting that our measures and interfaces transpose to metadata clusters. We provide an example application to a corpus relevant to current science, technology and society (STS) research and an interesting case for our approach: the abstracts presented between 1995 and 2017 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, the major oncology research conference. Through a sequence of domain-topic and domain-chained models, we identify and describe a group of domains that have notably grown through the last decades and which we relate to the establishment of "oncopolicy" as a major concern in oncology.

0.020188658 = product of:
  0.08075463 = sum of:
    0.08075463 = sum of:
      0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022378203 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029320091 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029056335 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.

Date

20.11.2023 17:29:13

0.019300502 = product of:
  0.07720201 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

0.019300502 = product of:
  0.07720201 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=356)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Conversational interfaces are increasingly popular as a way of connecting people to information. With the increased generative capacity of corpus-based conversational agents comes the need to classify and filter out malevolent responses that are inappropriate in terms of content and dialogue acts. Previous studies on the topic of detecting and classifying inappropriate content are mostly focused on a specific category of malevolence or on single sentences instead of an entire dialogue. We make three contributions to advance research on the malevolent dialogue response detection and classification (MDRDC) task. First, we define the task and present a hierarchical malevolent dialogue taxonomy. Second, we create a labeled multiturn dialogue data set and formulate the MDRDC task as a hierarchical classification task. Last, we apply state-of-the-art text classification methods to the MDRDC task, and report on experiments aimed at assessing the performance of these approaches.

0.018196687 = product of:
  0.07278675 = sum of:
    0.07278675 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07278675 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3256704 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

0.017030947 = product of:
  0.06812379 = sum of:
    0.06812379 = product of:
      0.20437136 = sum of:
        0.20437136 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20437136 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36363843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.01608375 = product of:
  0.064335 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=5817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 5817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5817)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information seeking and access are essential for users in all walks of life, from addressing personal needs such as finding flights to locating information needed to complete work tasks. Over the past decade or so, the general needs of people with impairments have increasingly been recognized as something to be addressed, an issue embedded both in international treaties and in state legislation. The same tendency can be found in research, where a growing number of user studies including people with impairments have been conducted. The purpose of these studies is typically to uncover potential barriers for access to information, especially in the context of inaccessible search user interfaces. This literature review provides an overview of research on the information seeking and searching of users with impairments. The aim is to provide an overview to both researchers and practitioners who work with any of the user groups identified. Some diagnoses are relatively well represented in the literature (for instance, visual impairment), but there is very little work in other areas (for instance, autism) and in some cases no work at all (for instance, aphasia). Gaps are identified in the research, and suggestions are made regarding areas where further research is needed.

0.01608375 = product of:
  0.064335 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The transfer of knowledge has not changed fundamentally for many hundreds of years: It is usually document-based-formerly printed on paper as a classic essay and nowadays as PDF. With around 2.5 million new research contributions every year, researchers drown in a flood of pseudo-digitized PDF publications. As a result research is seriously weakened. In this article, we argue for representing scholarly contributions in a structured and semantic way as a knowledge graph. The advantage is that information represented in a knowledge graph is readable by machines and humans. As an example, we give an overview on the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), a service implementing this approach. For creating the knowledge graph representation, we rely on a mixture of manual (crowd/expert sourcing) and (semi-)automated techniques. Only with such a combination of human and machine intelligence, we can achieve the required quality of the representation to allow for novel exploration and assistance services for researchers. As a result, a scholarly knowledge graph such as the ORKG can be used to give a condensed overview on the state-of-the-art addressing a particular research quest, for example as a tabular comparison of contributions according to various characteristics of the approaches. Further possible intuitive access interfaces to such scholarly knowledge graphs include domain-specific (chart) visualizations or answering of natural language questions.

0.01608375 = product of:
  0.064335 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Manuscripts are a crucial form of evidence for research into all aspects of premodern European history and culture, and there are numerous databases devoted to describing them in detail. This descriptive information, however, is typically available only in separate data silos based on incompatible data models and user interfaces. As a result, it has been difficult to study manuscripts comprehensively across these various platforms. To address this challenge, a team of manuscript scholars and computer scientists worked to create "Mapping Manuscript Migrations" (MMM), a semantic portal, and a Linked Open Data service. MMM stands as a successful proof of concept for integrating distinct manuscript datasets into a shared platform for research and discovery with the potential for future expansion. This paper will discuss the major products of the MMM project: a unified data model, a repeatable data transformation pipeline, a Linked Open Data knowledge graph, and a Semantic Web portal. It will also examine the crucial importance of an iterative process of multidisciplinary collaboration embedded throughout the project, enabling humanities researchers to shape the development of a digital platform and tools, while also enabling the same researchers to ask more sophisticated and comprehensive research questions of the aggregated data.

0.016075782 = product of:
  0.06430313 = sum of:
    0.06430313 = product of:
      0.096454695 = sum of:
        0.067134604 = weight(_text_:systems in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067134604 = score(doc=1108,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5093115 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The review attempts to compare different points of view on the essence of the systems approach, describe the terminological confusion around it and analyse the numerous definitions of system. It is shown that the vagueness and ambiguity of the concept of the systems approach is manifested in the use of a number of terms which are similar in meaning and close in sound to it. It is proposed to divide the existing definitions of system into descriptive and formal ones. The concepts included in the descriptive definitions, as well as the numerous synonymous terms denoting them, are divided into five conceptual-terminological groups that differ in their content and logical meaning. The meanings of such concepts as minimal constituent parts, emergence, environment, boundaries, purpose, functions of system and systems hierarchy are revealed. Some uses of the concept in knowledge organization are mentioned. The problem of systems classification is touched upon. Separate sections are devoted to the highlights of the history of the systems approach, its criticism and the significance. Particular attention is paid to criticism of the mathematization of the systems approach. Possible reasons for the decline in interest in the systems approach are identified. It is concluded that the systems approach helps to find new ways to solve scientific and practical problems.

Date

20.11.2023 13:36:29

0.014192456 = product of:
  0.056769826 = sum of:
    0.056769826 = product of:
      0.17030947 = sum of:
        0.17030947 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17030947 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36363843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.013563303 = product of:
  0.054253213 = sum of:
    0.054253213 = product of:
      0.081379816 = sum of:
        0.04651222 = weight(_text_:systems in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04651222 = score(doc=5996,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.

Date

6.10.2020 21:22:33

0.011675285 = product of:
  0.04670114 = sum of:
    0.04670114 = product of:
      0.07005171 = sum of:
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 299, 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=299)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 6.2021 16:29:52

Source

o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 8(2021) Nr.2, S.1-22

0.011675285 = product of:
  0.04670114 = sum of:
    0.04670114 = product of:
      0.07005171 = sum of:
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29