Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.104540996 = product of:
  0.15681149 = sum of:
    0.12096497 = weight(_text_:search in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12096497 = score(doc=2833,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.69228697 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 2833, 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=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Creative professionals in advertising, marketing, design and journalism search for images to visually represent a concept for their project. The main purpose of this paper is to present search facets derived from an analysis of documents known as briefs, which are widely used in creative industries as requirement documents describing information needs. The briefs specify the type of image required, such as the content and context of use for the image and represent the topic from which the searcher builds an image query. We take three main sources-user image search behaviour, briefs, and image search engine search facets-to examine the search facets for image searching in order to examine the following research question-are search facet schemes for image search engines sufficient for user needs, or is revision needed? We found that there are three main classes of user search facet, which include business, contextual and image related information. The key argument in the paper is that the facet "keyword/tag" is ambiguous and does not support user needs for more generic descriptions to broaden search or specific descriptions to narrow their search-we suggest that a more detailed search facet scheme would be appropriate.

0.06743714 = product of:
  0.10115571 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.04626411 = product of:
  0.06939616 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=2122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=2122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 2122, 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=2122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.

0.026839714 = product of:
  0.08051914 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=142)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.026839714 = product of:
  0.08051914 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 1044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=1044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 1044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1044)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.026839714 = product of:
  0.08051914 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=2203,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a framework for knowledge discovery and concept exploration. In order to enhance the concept exploration capability of knowledge based systems and to alleviate the limitation of the manual browsing approach, develops 2 spreading activation based algorithms for concept exploration in large, heterogeneous networks of concepts (eg multiple thesauri). One algorithm, which is based on the symbolic AI paradigma, performs a conventional branch-and-bound search on a semantic net representation to identify other highly relevant concepts (a serial, optimal search process). The 2nd algorithm, which is absed on the neural network approach, executes the Hopfield net parallel relaxation and convergence process to identify 'convergent' concepts for some initial queries (a parallel, heuristic search process). Tests these 2 algorithms on a large text-based knowledge network of about 13.000 nodes (terms) and 80.000 directed links in the area of computing technologies

0.025789827 = product of:
  0.03868474 = sum of:
    0.028467814 = weight(_text_:search in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028467814 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.16292235 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.010216928 = product of:
      0.020433856 = sum of:
        0.020433856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020433856 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, 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=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.022366427 = product of:
  0.06709928 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=612,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

0.021914534 = product of:
  0.0657436 = sum of:
    0.0657436 = weight(_text_:search in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0657436 = score(doc=2671,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.37625307 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=1958,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

0.017893143 = product of:
  0.053679425 = sum of:
    0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053679425 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The principle of specificity for subject headings provides a clear advantage to many researchers for the precision it brings to subject searching. However, for some researchers very specific subject headings hinder an efficient and comprehensive search. An appropriate broader heading, especially when made narrower in scope by the addition of subheadings, can benefit researchers by providing generic access to their topic. Assigning both specific and generic subject headings to a work would enhance the subject accessibility for the diverse approaches and research needs of different catalog users. However, it can be difficult for catalogers to assign broader terms consistently to different works and without consistency the gathering function of those terms may not be realized.

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 5845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=5845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5845)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on a study of children's intentions, purposes, search terms, strategies, successes and breakdowns in accessing fiction. Data was gathered using naturalistic methods of persistent, intensive observation and questioning with children in several school library media centres in the USA, including 997 OPAC transactions. Analyzes the data and highlights aspects of the broader context of the system which may help in development of mechanisms for electronic access

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2258)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

This paper examines three themes in the design of search support services: linking different genres of reference resources (e.g. bibliographies, biographical dictionaries, catalogs, encyclopedias, place name gazetteers); the division of vocabularies by facet (e.g. What, Where, When, and Who); and mapping between both similar and dissimilar vocabularies. Different vocabularies within a facet can be used in conjunction, e.g. a place name combined with spatial coordinates for Where. In practice, vocabularies of different facets are used in combination in the representation or description of complex topics. Rich opportunities arise from mapping across vocabularies of dissimilar reference genres to recreate the amenities of a reference library. In a network environment, in which vocabulary control cannot be imposed, semantic correspondence across diverse vocabularies is a challenge and an opportunity.

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 3584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=3584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 3584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3584)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Emotional meaning is critical for users to retrieve relevant images. However, because emotional meanings are subject to the individual viewer's interpretation, they are considered difficult to implement when designing image retrieval systems. With the intent of making an image's emotional messages more readily accessible, this study aims to test a new approach designed to enhance the accessibility of emotional meanings during the image search process. This approach utilizes image searchers' emotional reactions, which are quantitatively measured. Broadly used quantitative measurements for emotional reactions, Semantic Differential (SD) and Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), were selected as tools for gathering users' reactions. Emotional representations obtained from these two tools were compared with three image perception tasks: searching, describing, and sorting. A survey questionnaire with a set of 12 images was administered to 58 participants, which were tagged with basic emotions. Results demonstrated that the SAM represents basic emotions on 2-dimensional plots (pleasure and arousal dimensions), and this representation consistently corresponded to the three image perception tasks. This study provided experimental evidence that quantitative users' reactions can be a useful complementary element of current image retrieval/indexing systems. Integrating users' reactions obtained from the SAM into image browsing systems would reduce the efforts of human indexers as well as improve the effectiveness of image retrieval systems.

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.008027177 = product of:
  0.024081532 = sum of:
    0.024081532 = product of:
      0.048163064 = sum of:
        0.048163064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048163064 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, 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=4888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18