Search (202 results, page 1 of 11)

0.08297856 = product of:
  0.124467835 = sum of:
    0.093428686 = weight(_text_:wide in 1094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093428686 = score(doc=1094,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.4153836 = fieldWeight in 1094, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1094)
    0.031039147 = product of:
      0.062078293 = sum of:
        0.062078293 = weight(_text_:web in 1094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062078293 = score(doc=1094,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 1094, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for representing controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri, classifications, and similar systems for organizing and indexing information as linked data elements in the Semantic Web, using the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The SKOS data model is centered on "concepts", which can have preferred and alternate labels in any language as well as other metadata, and which are identified by addresses on the World Wide Web (URIs). Concepts are grouped into hierarchies through "broader" and "narrower" relations, with "top concepts" at the broadest conceptual level. Concepts are also organized into "concept schemes", also identified by URIs. Other relations, mappings, and groupings are also supported. This article discusses the history of the development of SKOS and provides notes on adoption, uses, and limitations.

0.07552472 = product of:
  0.11328708 = sum of:
    0.07707474 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707474 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.036212336 = product of:
      0.07242467 = sum of:
        0.07242467 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07242467 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.

0.06598447 = product of:
  0.0989767 = sum of:
    0.07785724 = weight(_text_:wide in 4016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07785724 = score(doc=4016,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 4016, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4016)
    0.021119464 = product of:
      0.04223893 = sum of:
        0.04223893 = weight(_text_:web in 4016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04223893 = score(doc=4016,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4016, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

RSWK

World Wide Web Recherche

Subject

World Wide Web Recherche

0.06315294 = product of:
  0.09472941 = sum of:
    0.044042703 = weight(_text_:wide in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044042703 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
    0.05068671 = product of:
      0.10137342 = sum of:
        0.10137342 = weight(_text_:web in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10137342 = score(doc=79,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.06093827 = product of:
  0.0914074 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=793,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
    0.025343355 = product of:
      0.05068671 = sum of:
        0.05068671 = weight(_text_:web in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05068671 = score(doc=793,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Eine Suchmaschine (auch: Web-Suchmaschine, Universalsuchmaschine) ist ein Computersystem, das Inhalte aus dem World Wide Web (WWW) mittels Crawling erfasst und über eine Benutzerschnittstelle durchsuchbar macht, wobei die Ergebnisse in einer nach systemseitig angenommener Relevanz geordneten Darstellung aufgeführt werden. Dies bedeutet, dass Suchmaschinen im Gegensatz zu anderen Informationssystemen nicht auf einem klar abgegrenzten Datenbestand aufbauen, sondern diesen aus den verstreut vorliegenden Dokumenten des WWW zusammenstellen. Dieser Datenbestand wird über eine Benutzerschnittstelle zugänglich gemacht, die so gestaltet ist, dass die Suchmaschine von Laien problemlos genutzt werden kann. Die zu einer Suchanfrage ausgegebenen Treffer werden so sortiert, dass den Nutzenden die aus Systemsicht relevantesten Dokumente zuerst angezeigt werden. Dabei handelt es sich um komplexe Bewertungsverfahren, denen zahlreiche Annahmen über die Relevanz von Dokumenten in Bezug auf Suchanfragen zugrunde liegen.

0.055989675 = product of:
  0.08398451 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
    0.017920459 = product of:
      0.035840917 = sum of:
        0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840917 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.

0.054748103 = product of:
  0.082122155 = sum of:
    0.06718844 = product of:
      0.20156533 = sum of:
        0.20156533 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20156533 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43037477 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
    0.014933716 = product of:
      0.029867431 = sum of:
        0.029867431 = weight(_text_:web in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867431 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.048165213 = product of:
  0.07224782 = sum of:
    0.055053383 = weight(_text_:wide in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055053383 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.017194435 = product of:
      0.03438887 = sum of:
        0.03438887 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438887 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.048165213 = product of:
  0.07224782 = sum of:
    0.055053383 = weight(_text_:wide in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055053383 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.017194435 = product of:
      0.03438887 = sum of:
        0.03438887 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438887 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1012, 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=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

With the wide application of keyphrases in many Information Retrieval (IR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, automatic keyphrase prediction has been emerging. However, these statistically important phrases are contributing increasingly less to the related tasks because the end-to-end learning mechanism enables models to learn the important semantic information of the text directly. Similarly, keyphrases are of little help for readers to quickly grasp the paper's main idea because the relationship between the keyphrase and the paper is not explicit to readers. Therefore, we propose to generate keyphrases with specific functions for readers to bridge the semantic gap between them and the information producers, and verify the effectiveness of the keyphrase function for assisting users' comprehension with a user experiment. A controllable keyphrase generation framework (the CKPG) that uses the keyphrase function as a control code to generate categorized keyphrases is proposed and implemented based on Transformer, BART, and T5, respectively. For the Computer Science domain, the Macro-avgs of , , and on the Paper with Code dataset are up to 0.680, 0.535, and 0.558, respectively. Our experimental results indicate the effectiveness of the CKPG models.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:55:20

0.046658065 = product of:
  0.069987096 = sum of:
    0.055053383 = weight(_text_:wide in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055053383 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
    0.014933716 = product of:
      0.029867431 = sum of:
        0.029867431 = weight(_text_:web in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867431 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

More knowledge and a better understanding of health information seeking are necessary, especially in these unprecedented times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using Sonnenwald's theoretical concept of information horizons, this study aimed to uncover patterns in mothers' source preferences related to their children's health. Online surveys were completed by 851 mothers (255 US-born/US-dwelling, 300 Korean-born/US-dwelling, and 296 Korean-born/Korean-dwelling), and supplementary in-depth interviews with 24 mothers were conducted and analyzed. Results indicate that there were remarkable differences between the mothers' information source preference and their actual source use. Moreover, there were many similarities between the two Korean-born groups concerning health information-seeking behavior. For instance, those two groups sought health information more frequently than US-born/US-dwelling mothers. Their sources frequently included blogs or online forums as well as friends with children, whereas US-born/US-dwelling mothers frequently used doctors or nurses as information sources. Mothers in the two Korean-born samples preferred the World Wide Web most as their health information source, while the US-born/US-dwelling mothers preferred doctors the most. Based on these findings, information professionals should guide mothers of specific ethnicities and nationalities to trustworthy sources considering both their usage and preferences.

0.03732645 = product of:
  0.055989675 = sum of:
    0.044042703 = weight(_text_:wide in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044042703 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
    0.011946972 = product of:
      0.023893945 = sum of:
        0.023893945 = weight(_text_:web in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023893945 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Vorwort -- 1. Das digitale Zeitalter -- Zeitenwende -- Die Vorherrschaft des Buchdrucks geht zu Ende -- Wann beginnt das digitale Zeitalter? -- 2. Zwischen Euphorie und Apokalypse -- Digitalisierung. Einfach. Machen -- Euphorie -- Apokalypse -- Verantwortungsethik -- Der Mensch als Subjekt der Ethik -- Verantwortung als Prinzip -- 3. Digitalisierter Alltag in einer globalisierten Welt -- Vom World Wide Web zum Internet der Dinge -- Mobiles Internet und digitale Bildung -- Digitale Plattformen und ihre Strategien -- Big Data und informationelle Selbstbestimmung -- 4. Grenzüberschreitungen -- Die Erosion des Privaten -- Die Deformation des Öffentlichen -- Die Senkung von Hemmschwellen -- Das Verschwinden der Wirklichkeit -- Die Wahrheit in der Infosphäre -- 5. Die Zukunft der Arbeit -- Industrielle Revolutionen -- Arbeit 4.0 -- Ethik 4.0 -- 6. Digitale Intelligenz -- Können Computer dichten? -- Stärker als der Mensch? -- Maschinelles Lernen -- Ein bleibender Unterschied -- Ethische Prinzipien für den Umgang mit digitaler Intelligenz -- Medizin als Beispiel -- 7. Die Würde des Menschen im digitalen Zeitalter -- Kränkungen oder Revolutionen -- Transhumanismus und Posthumanismus -- Gibt es Empathie ohne Menschen? -- Wer ist autonom: Mensch oder Maschine? -- Humanismus der Verantwortung -- 8. Die Zukunft des Homo sapiens -- Vergöttlichung des Menschen -- Homo deus -- Gott und Mensch im digitalen Zeitalter -- Veränderung der Menschheit -- Literatur -- Personenregister.

0.035849612 = product of:
  0.10754883 = sum of:
    0.10754883 = sum of:
      0.07315996 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07315996 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.03438887 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438887 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

Object

Web of Science

0.03575964 = product of:
  0.10727891 = sum of:
    0.10727891 = sum of:
      0.0591345 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0591345 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.048144415 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048144415 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.028899124 = product of:
  0.043348685 = sum of:
    0.033032026 = weight(_text_:wide in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033032026 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.010316661 = product of:
      0.020633321 = sum of:
        0.020633321 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020633321 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, 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=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.026875377 = product of:
  0.08062613 = sum of:
    0.08062613 = product of:
      0.24187839 = sum of:
        0.24187839 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24187839 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43037477 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.025952414 = product of:
  0.07785724 = sum of:
    0.07785724 = weight(_text_:wide in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07785724 = score(doc=5841,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 5841, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5841)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose To provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of Michel Foucault's works by library and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach The study conducted extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examined each cited article to evaluate the nature and depth of use. Findings Most uses of Foucault are brief or in passing. In-depth explorations of Foucault's works are comparatively rare and relatively little-used by other LIS scholars. Yet the relatively brief uses of Foucault encompass a wide array of different topics spread across a wide spectrum of LIS journal literature. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to articles from particular relatively prominent LIS journals. Results might vary if different journals or non-journal literature were studied. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques might reveal different relative performance among journals and might better test, confirm, or reject various patterns and relationships found here. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence not visible in this literature sample. Originality/value This intensive study of both quality and quantity of citations may challenge some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship. It also indicates possible problems for future application of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to similar depth-of-use studies.

0.025952414 = product of:
  0.07785724 = sum of:
    0.07785724 = weight(_text_:wide in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07785724 = score(doc=961,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The information schools, also referred to as iField schools, are leaders in data science education. This study aims to develop a data science graduate curriculum model from an information science perspective to support iField schools in developing data science graduate education. In June 2020, information about 96 data science graduate programs from iField schools worldwide was collected and analyzed using a mixed research method based on inductive content analysis. A wide range of data science competencies and skills development and 12 knowledge topics covered by the curriculum were obtained. The humanistic model is further taken as the theoretical and methodological basis for course model construction, and 12 course knowledge topics are reconstructed into 4 course modules, including (a) data-driven methods and techniques; (b) domain knowledge; (c) legal, moral, and ethical aspects of data; and (d) shaping and developing personal traits, and human-centered data science graduate curriculum model is formed. At the end of the study, the wide application prospect of this model is discussed.

0.025702521 = product of:
  0.07710756 = sum of:
    0.07710756 = sum of:
      0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035840917 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
      0.041266643 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041266643 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:53:32

0.023329033 = product of:
  0.034993548 = sum of:
    0.027526692 = weight(_text_:wide in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027526692 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
    0.007466858 = product of:
      0.014933716 = sum of:
        0.014933716 = weight(_text_:web in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014933716 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.

0.022396147 = product of:
  0.06718844 = sum of:
    0.06718844 = product of:
      0.20156533 = sum of:
        0.20156533 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20156533 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43037477 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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."