Search (833 results, page 1 of 42)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.06
    0.059743285 = product of:
      0.08961493 = sum of:
        0.072331384 = product of:
          0.21699414 = sum of:
            0.21699414 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.21699414 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.38609818 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = 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)
        0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017283546 = score(doc=862,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020) 0.04
    0.038180627 = product of:
      0.057270937 = sum of:
        0.032590162 = weight(_text_:to in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032590162 = score(doc=5749,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.39361957 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
        0.024680775 = product of:
          0.04936155 = sum of:
            0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04936155 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This article describes experiments in the use of machine learning techniques at the British Library to assign language codes to catalog records, in order to provide information about the language of content of the resources described. In the first phase of the project, language codes were assigned to 1.15 million records with 99.7% confidence. The automated language identification tools developed will be used to contribute to future enhancement of over 4 million legacy records.
    Date
    2. 3.2020 19:04:22
  3. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.03
    0.031751644 = product of:
      0.047627464 = sum of:
        0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026031785 = score(doc=997,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
        0.021595677 = product of:
          0.043191355 = sum of:
            0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043191355 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
  4. Hertzum, M.: Information seeking by experimentation : trying something out to discover what happens (2023) 0.03
    0.028635468 = product of:
      0.0429532 = sum of:
        0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02444262 = score(doc=915,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Experimentation is the process of trying something out to discover what happens. It is a widespread information practice, yet often bypassed in information-behavior research. This article argues that experimentation complements prior knowledge, documents, and people as an important fourth class of information sources. Relative to the other classes, the distinguishing characteristics of experimentation are that it is a personal-as opposed to interpersonal-source and that it provides "backtalk." When the information seeker tries something out and then attends to the resulting situation, it is as though the materials of the situation talk back: They provide the information seeker with a situated and direct experience of the consequences of the tried-out options. In this way, experimentation involves obtaining information by creating it. It also involves turning material and behavioral processes into information interactions. Thereby, information seeking by experimentation is important to practical information literacy and extends information-behavior research with new insights on the interrelations between creating and seeking information.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:29
  5. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.03
    0.027839875 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020164136 = score(doc=547,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
        0.021595677 = product of:
          0.043191355 = sum of:
            0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043191355 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  6. Geras, A.; Siudem, G.; Gagolewski, M.: Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles? (2020) 0.03
    0.027215695 = product of:
      0.04082354 = sum of:
        0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02231296 = score(doc=5620,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5620, 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=5620)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    There is a mutual resemblance between the behavior of users of the Stack Exchange and the dynamics of the citations accumulation process in the scientific community, which enabled us to tackle the outwardly intractable problem of assessing the impact of introducing "negative" citations. Although the most frequent reason to cite an article is to highlight the connection between the 2 publications, researchers sometimes mention an earlier work to cast a negative light. While computing citation-based scores, for instance, the h-index, information about the reason why an article was mentioned is neglected. Therefore, it can be questioned whether these indices describe scientific achievements accurately. In this article we shed insight into the problem of "negative" citations, analyzing data from Stack Exchange and, to draw more universal conclusions, we derive an approximation of citations scores. Here we show that the quantified influence of introducing negative citations is of lesser importance and that they could be used as an indicator of where the attention of the scientific community is allocated.
    Date
    6. 1.2020 18:10:22
  7. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.03
    0.027215695 = product of:
      0.04082354 = sum of:
        0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02231296 = score(doc=886,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  8. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.03
    0.026914757 = product of:
      0.040372133 = sum of:
        0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024946647 = score(doc=5843,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Rae, A.R.; Mork, J.G.; Demner-Fushman, D.: ¬The National Library of Medicine indexer assignment dataset : a new large-scale dataset for reviewer assignment research (2023) 0.03
    0.026914757 = product of:
      0.040372133 = sum of:
        0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024946647 = score(doc=885,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 885, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=885)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=885,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 885, 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=885)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    MEDLINE is the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) journal citation database. It contains over 28 million references to biomedical and life science journal articles, and a key feature of the database is that all articles are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The library employs a team of MeSH indexers, and in recent years they have been asked to index close to 1 million articles per year in order to keep MEDLINE up to date. An important part of the MEDLINE indexing process is the assignment of articles to indexers. High quality and timely indexing is only possible when articles are assigned to indexers with suitable expertise. This article introduces the NLM indexer assignment dataset: a large dataset of 4.2 million indexer article assignments for articles indexed between 2011 and 2019. The dataset is shown to be a valuable testbed for expert matching and assignment algorithms, and indexer article assignment is also found to be useful domain-adaptive pre-training for the closely related task of reviewer assignment.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:49:49
  10. Jiang, Y.; Meng, R.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, J.: Generating keyphrases for readers : a controllable keyphrase generation framework (2023) 0.03
    0.026914757 = product of:
      0.040372133 = sum of:
        0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024946647 = score(doc=1012,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = 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
  11. Das, S.; Bagchi, M.; Hussey, P.: How to teach domain ontology-based knowledge graph construction? : an Irish experiment (2023) 0.03
    0.026914757 = product of:
      0.040372133 = sum of:
        0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024946647 = score(doc=1126,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 1126, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1126)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Domains represent concepts which belong to specific parts of the world. The particularized meaning of words linguistically encoding such domain concepts are provided by domain specific resources. The explicit meaning of such words are increasingly captured computationally using domain-specific ontologies, which, even for the same reference domain, are most often than not semantically incompatible. As information systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, there is a growing need to not only design domain ontologies and domain ontology-grounded Knowl­edge Graphs (KGs) but also to align them to general standards and conventions for interoperability. This often presents an insurmountable challenge to domain experts who have to additionally learn the construction of domain ontologies and KGs. Until now, several research methodologies have been proposed by different research groups using different technical approaches and based on scenarios of different domains of application. However, no methodology has been proposed which not only facilitates designing conceptually well-founded ontologies, but is also, equally, grounded in the general pedagogical principles of knowl­edge organization and, thereby, flexible enough to teach, and reproduce vis-à-vis domain experts. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a general, pedagogically flexible semantic knowl­edge modelling methodology. We exemplify the methodology by examples and illustrations from a professional-level digital healthcare course, and conclude with an evaluation grounded in technological parameters as well as user experience design principles.
    Date
    20.11.2023 17:19:22
  12. Kang, M.: Dual paths to continuous online knowledge sharing : a repetitive behavior perspective (2020) 0.03
    0.025963604 = product of:
      0.038945407 = sum of:
        0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023519924 = score(doc=5985,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5985, 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=5985)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Continuous knowledge sharing by active users, who are highly active in answering questions, is crucial to the sustenance of social question-and-answer (Q&A) sites. The purpose of this paper is to examine such knowledge sharing considering reason-based elaborate decision and habit-based automated cognitive processes. Design/methodology/approach To verify the research hypotheses, survey data on subjective intentions and web-crawled data on objective behavior are utilized. The sample size is 337 with the response rate of 27.2 percent. Negative binomial and hierarchical linear regressions are used given the skewed distribution of the dependent variable (i.e. the number of answers). Findings Both elaborate decision (linking satisfaction, intentions and continuance behavior) and automated cognitive processes (linking past and continuance behavior) are significant and substitutable. Research limitations/implications By measuring both subjective intentions and objective behavior, it verifies a detailed mechanism linking continuance intentions, past behavior and continuous knowledge sharing. The significant influence of automated cognitive processes implies that online knowledge sharing is habitual for active users. Practical implications Understanding that online knowledge sharing is habitual is imperative to maintaining continuous knowledge sharing by active users. Knowledge sharing trends should be monitored to check if the frequency of sharing decreases. Social Q&A sites should intervene to restore knowledge sharing behavior through personalized incentives. Originality/value This is the first study utilizing both subjective intentions and objective behavior data in the context of online knowledge sharing. It also introduces habit-based automated cognitive processes to this context. This approach extends the current understanding of continuous online knowledge sharing behavior.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  13. Huang, T.; Nie, R.; Zhao, Y.: Archival knowledge in the field of personal archiving : an exploratory study based on grounded theory (2021) 0.03
    0.025963604 = product of:
      0.038945407 = sum of:
        0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023519924 = score(doc=173,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=173,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 173, 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=173)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework to illustrate the archival knowledge applied by archivists in their personal archiving (PA) and the mechanism of the application of archival knowledge in their PA. Design/methodology/approach The grounded theory methodology was adopted. For data collection, in-depth interviews were conducted with 21 archivists in China. Data analysis was performed using the open coding, axial coding and selective coding to organise the archival knowledge composition of PA and develops the awareness-knowledge-action (AKA) integration model of archival knowledge application in the field of PA, according to the principles of the grounded theory. Findings The archival knowledge involved in the field of PA comprises four principal categories: documentation, arrangement, preservation and appraisal. Three interactive factors involved in archivists' archival knowledge application in the field of PA behaviour: awareness, knowledge and action, which form a pattern of awareness leading, knowledge guidance and action innovation, and archivists' PA practice is flexible and innovative. The paper underscored that it is need to improve archival literacy among general public. Originality/value The study constructs a theoretical framework to identify the specialised archival knowledge and skills of PA which is able to provide solutions for non-specialist PA and develops an AKA model to explain the interaction relationships between awareness, knowledge and action in the field of PA.
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:20:27
  14. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.03
    0.025963604 = product of:
      0.038945407 = sum of:
        0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023519924 = score(doc=950,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.
    Date
    22. 4.2023 19:27:56
  15. Guo, T.; Bai, X.; Zhen, S.; Abid, S.; Xia, F.: Lost at starting line : predicting maladaptation of university freshmen based on educational big data (2023) 0.03
    0.025963604 = product of:
      0.038945407 = sum of:
        0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023519924 = score(doc=1194,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
        0.015425485 = product of:
          0.03085097 = sum of:
            0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03085097 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    The transition from secondary education to higher education could be challenging for most freshmen. For students who fail to adjust to university life smoothly, their status may worsen if the university cannot offer timely and proper guidance. Helping students adapt to university life is a long-term goal for any academic institution. Therefore, understanding the nature of the maladaptation phenomenon and the early prediction of "at-risk" students are crucial tasks that urgently need to be tackled effectively. This article aims to analyze the relevant factors that affect the maladaptation phenomenon and predict this phenomenon in advance. We develop a prediction framework (MAladaptive STudEnt pRediction, MASTER) for the early prediction of students with maladaptation. First, our framework uses the SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique) algorithm to solve the data label imbalance issue. Moreover, a novel ensemble algorithm, priority forest, is proposed for outputting ranks instead of binary results, which enables us to perform proactive interventions in a prioritized manner where limited education resources are available. Experimental results on real-world education datasets demonstrate that the MASTER framework outperforms other state-of-art methods.
    Date
    27.12.2022 18:34:22
  16. Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021) 0.03
    0.025645267 = product of:
      0.0384679 = sum of:
        0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957317 = score(doc=182,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Park, Y.J.: ¬A socio-technological model of search information divide in US cities (2021) 0.03
    0.025645267 = product of:
      0.0384679 = sum of:
        0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957317 = score(doc=184,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. Li, G.; Siddharth, L.; Luo, J.: Embedding knowledge graph of patent metadata to measure knowledge proximity (2023) 0.03
    0.025645267 = product of:
      0.0384679 = sum of:
        0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957317 = score(doc=920,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 920, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=920)
        0.018510582 = product of:
          0.037021164 = sum of:
            0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037021164 = score(doc=920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 920, 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=920)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Knowledge proximity refers to the strength of association between any two entities in a structural form that embodies certain aspects of a knowledge base. In this work, we operationalize knowledge proximity within the context of the US Patent Database (knowledge base) using a knowledge graph (structural form) named "PatNet" built using patent metadata, including citations, inventors, assignees, and domain classifications. We train various graph embedding models using PatNet to obtain the embeddings of entities and relations. The cosine similarity between the corresponding (or transformed) embeddings of entities denotes the knowledge proximity between these. We compare the embedding models in terms of their performances in predicting target entities and explaining domain expansion profiles of inventors and assignees. We then apply the embeddings of the best-preferred model to associate homogeneous (e.g., patent-patent) and heterogeneous (e.g., inventor-assignee) pairs of entities.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 12:06:55
  19. Palsdottir, A.: Data literacy and management of research data : a prerequisite for the sharing of research data (2021) 0.03
    0.025403451 = product of:
      0.038105175 = sum of:
        0.025764786 = weight(_text_:to in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025764786 = score(doc=183,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.3111836 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
        0.012340387 = product of:
          0.024680775 = sum of:
            0.024680775 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024680775 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.03
    0.025373083 = product of:
      0.038059622 = sum of:
        0.016463947 = weight(_text_:to in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016463947 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.19884932 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
        0.021595677 = product of:
          0.043191355 = sum of:
            0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043191355 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045541126 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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

Languages

  • e 786
  • d 41
  • pt 4
  • m 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 789
  • el 86
  • m 19
  • p 13
  • s 4
  • x 2
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications