Search (685 results, page 1 of 35)

0.09660635 = product of:
  0.48303175 = sum of:
    0.48303175 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.48303175 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.0805053 = product of:
  0.40252647 = sum of:
    0.40252647 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40252647 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.056353707 = product of:
  0.28176853 = sum of:
    0.28176853 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28176853 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.048958067 = product of:
  0.122395165 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.034337327 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034337327 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, 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=636)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The 2012 biennial international research conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization was held August 6-9, in Mysore, India. It was the second international ISKO conference to be held in India (Canada and India are the only countries to have hosted two international ISKO conferences), and for many attendees travel to the exotic Indian subcontinent was a new experience. Interestingly, the mix of people attending was quite different from recent meetings held in Europe or North America. The conference was lively and, as usual, jam-packed with new research. Registration took place on a veranda in the garden of the B. N. Bahadur Institute of Management Sciences where the meetings were held at the University of Mysore. This graceful tree (Figure 1) kept us company and kept watch over our considerations (as indeed it does over the academic enterprise of the Institute). The conference theme was "Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization." The opening and closing sessions fittingly were devoted to serious introspection about the direction of the domain of knowledge organization. This editorial, in line with those following past international conferences, is an attempt to comment on the state of the domain by reflecting domain-analytically on the proceedings of the conference, primarily using bibliometric measures. In general, it seems the domain is secure in its intellectual moorings, as it continues to welcome a broad granular array of shifting research questionsin its intension. It seems that the continual concretizing of the theoretical core of knowledge organization (KO) seems to act as a catalyst for emergent ideas, which can be observed as part of the evolving intension of the domain.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:43:34

0.048303176 = product of:
  0.24151587 = sum of:
    0.24151587 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24151587 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.048303176 = product of:
  0.24151587 = sum of:
    0.24151587 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24151587 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.04025265 = product of:
  0.20126323 = sum of:
    0.20126323 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20126323 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.04025265 = product of:
  0.20126323 = sum of:
    0.20126323 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20126323 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.04025265 = product of:
  0.20126323 = sum of:
    0.20126323 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20126323 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, 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=855)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.039166458 = product of:
  0.09791614 = sum of:
    0.070446275 = weight(_text_:line in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070446275 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
    0.027469862 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027469862 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.03220212 = product of:
  0.1610106 = sum of:
    0.1610106 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1610106 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42972976 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.029887825 = product of:
  0.14943913 = sum of:
    0.14943913 = weight(_text_:line in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14943913 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.52573526 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper summarizes the results of an on-line survey which was executed 2010 in german archives of all branches. The survey focused on metadata and used metadata standards for the annotation of audiovisual media like pictures, audio and video files (analog and digital). The findings motivate the question whether archives are able to collaborate in projects like europeana if they do not use accepted standards for their orientation. Archives need more resources and archival staff need more training to execute more complex tasks in an digital and semantic surrounding.

0.028178511 = product of:
  0.14089255 = sum of:
    0.14089255 = weight(_text_:line in 4770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14089255 = score(doc=4770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 4770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4770)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.02490652 = product of:
  0.124532595 = sum of:
    0.124532595 = weight(_text_:line in 2048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.124532595 = score(doc=2048,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.43811268 = fieldWeight in 2048, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2048)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citizen science, or crowd science, or volunteer science, has increased in the last 4-5 years, with an accompanying increase in the literature. The main argument in such literature is that citizen science has many advantages, not only for scientists and the science that is produced, but also for the participating citizens. As a result of this line of reasoning, the main issue becomes: How we can facilitate citizen science, and help it expand to more projects, and involve more (types of) participants? My aim in this opinion paper is to make 2 points: First, that most recent work on citizen science fails to elaborate on the new types of relationships, practices, and interactions that are facilitated by information and communication technologies, when compared to traditional volunteer science. The second point is that there are pronounced disciplinary differences among citizen science projects, something that, again, is generally being missed in much recent work. Missing these points can lead us to imagine that it's only a matter of time (and of course funding) before all sciences catch up with citizen science. Such a line of thought can result in investing resources (money, time, effort) in projects and infrastructures that are doomed to fail, because of their topic or field of research. I conclude by offering some thoughts on a research agenda.

0.02490652 = product of:
  0.124532595 = sum of:
    0.124532595 = weight(_text_:line in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.124532595 = score(doc=5078,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.43811268 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A clear line of argument can be set out to link the (passive) intellectual freedom rights offered by Article Nineteen of the United Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to a consequent responsibility on governments, professionals and civil society activists for the (active) creation of suitable conditions for the effective exercise of intellectual freedom. Commentators on media in society and socially responsible computing are also increasingly drawing conclusions of this kind and stressing the importance of Media Literacy and Computer Literacy. This line of argument naturally directs attention towards the rationale currently offered for Information Literacy as a focus of professional activity. Whilst there are many elaborately worked-out programmes for Information Literacy instruction, these have so far been largely derived from practical perceptions of need. However, broad statements such as the Prague Declaration 'Towards an Information Literate Society' of 2003 and the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 can be seen as beginning to point towards a rationale for Information Literacy activities rooted in human rights, Article Nineteen in particular. The contention is that starting from a human rights perspective leads towards a strong, inclusive interpretation of Information Literacy. This subsumes Media Literacy, Computer Literacy, Web Literacy and, to a considerable extent, Civic Literacy into a model that serves human needs rather than the established priorities of information professionals. The value of this approach for both practice and research is stressed.

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Wikis sind ein geeignetes Mittel zur Umsetzung von umfangreichen Wissenssammlungen wie Lexika oder Enzyklopädien. Bestes Beispiel dafür bildet die weltweit erfolgreiche freie On-line-Enzyklopadie Wikipedia. Jedoch ist es mit konventionellen Wiki-Umgebungen nicht moglich das Potential der gespeicherten Texte vollends auszuschopfen. Eine neue Möglichkeit bieten semantische Wikis, deren Inhalte mithilfe von maschinenlesbaren Annotationen semantische Bezüge erhalten. Die hier vorliegende Bachelorarbeit greift dies auf und überführt Teile des "Reallexikons zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte" in ein semantisches Wiki. Aufgrund einer Semantic MediaWiki-Installation soll uberpruft werden, inwieweit die neue Technik fur die Erschließung des Lexikons genutzt werden kann. Mit einem Beispiel-Wiki für das RdK auf beigefügter CD.

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Are computer science papers extended after they are published? We have surveyed 200 computer science publications, 100 journal articles, and 100 conference papers, using self-citations to identify potential and actual continuations. We are interested in determining the proportion of papers that do indeed continue, how and when the continuation takes place, and whether any distinctions are found between the journal and conference populations. Despite the implicit assumption of a research line behind each paper, manifest in the ubiquitous "future research" notes that close many of them, we find that more than 70% of the papers are never continued.

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=1942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 1942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1942)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The eleven state universities of Florida have long shared an integrated library system architecture, but maintained separate databases. In 2009 the deans and directors of the eleven state university libraries tasked the three largest libraries to investigate the feasibility of combining all catalogs into a single bibliographic entity. With the help of a central utomation group, the three successfully negotiated the fine line between sharing data and retaining the unique work created by each of the three libraries. The groundwork laid in this initiative should prove valuable to other libraries seeking to centralize functions and pool resources.

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study aims to model the resource description tasks that are performed by catalogers. First, a model of authority data creator tasks is derived from Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), since FRAD partially includes such task modeling. Second, modeling of resource description tasks in line with Resource Description and Access (RDA) is conducted to cover the whole resource description tasks including those on descriptive data as well as those on authority data, and also to reflect RDA instructions as much as possible. Third, the modeling of resource description tasks is compared with that of user tasks in order to understand their differences.

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This brief communication analyzes the statistics and methods Lotka used to derive his inverse square law of scientific productivity from the standpoint of modern theory. It finds that he violated the norms of this theory by extremely truncating his data on the right. It also proves that Lotka himself played an important role in establishing the commonly used method of identifying power-law behavior by the R2 fit to a regression line on a log-log plot that modern theory considers unreliable by basing the derivation of his law on this very method.