Search (400 results, page 1 of 20)

0.17999947 = product of:
  0.2399993 = sum of:
    0.011771114 = product of:
      0.047084454 = sum of:
        0.047084454 = weight(_text_:based in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047084454 = score(doc=5678,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.13829985 = weight(_text_:term in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13829985 = score(doc=5678,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.6313907 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Pseudo-relevance feedback is a well-studied query expansion technique in which it is assumed that the top-ranked documents in an initial set of retrieval results are relevant and expansion terms are then extracted from those documents. When selecting expansion terms, most traditional models do not simultaneously consider term frequency and the co-occurrence relationships between candidate terms and query terms. Intuitively, however, a term that has a higher co-occurrence with a query term is more likely to be related to the query topic. In this article, we propose a kernel co-occurrence-based framework to enhance retrieval performance by integrating term co-occurrence information into the Rocchio model and a relevance language model (RM3). Specifically, a kernel co-occurrence-based Rocchio method (KRoc) and a kernel co-occurrence-based RM3 method (KRM3) are proposed. In our framework, co-occurrence information is incorporated into both the factor of the term discrimination power and the factor of the within-document term weight to boost retrieval performance. The results of a series of experiments show that our proposed methods significantly outperform the corresponding strong baselines over all data sets in terms of the mean average precision and over most data sets in terms of P@10. A direct comparison of standard Text Retrieval Conference data sets indicates that our proposed methods are at least comparable to state-of-the-art approaches.

0.1349774 = product of:
  0.17996988 = sum of:
    0.010194084 = product of:
      0.040776335 = sum of:
        0.040776335 = weight(_text_:based in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040776335 = score(doc=261,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Algorithmic classifications of research publications can be used to study many different aspects of the science system, such as the organization of science into fields, the growth of fields, interdisciplinarity, and emerging topics. How to label the classes in these classifications is a problem that has not been thoroughly addressed in the literature. In this study, we evaluate different approaches to label the classes in algorithmically constructed classifications of research publications. We focus on two important choices: the choice of (a) different bibliographic fields and (b) different approaches to weight the relevance of terms. To evaluate the different choices, we created two baselines: one based on the Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE and another based on the Science-Metrix journal classification. We tested to what extent different approaches yield the desired labels for the classes in the two baselines. Based on our results, we recommend extracting terms from titles and keywords to label classes at high levels of granularity (e.g., topics). At low levels of granularity (e.g., disciplines) we recommend extracting terms from journal names and author addresses. We recommend the use of a new approach, term frequency to specificity ratio, to calculate the relevance of terms.

0.11308204 = product of:
  0.22616407 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=159)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.22027852 = weight(_text_:frequency in 159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22027852 = score(doc=159,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.7968441 = fieldWeight in 159, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=159)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Frequency is one of the major factors for training quality word embeddings. Several studies have recently discussed the stability of word embeddings in general domain and suggested factors influencing the stability. In this work, we conduct a detailed analysis on the stability of concept embeddings in medical domain, particularly in relations with concept frequency. The analysis reveals the surprising high stability of low-frequency concepts: low-frequency (<100) concepts have the same high stability as high-frequency (>1,000) concepts. To develop a deeper understanding of this finding, we propose a new factor, the noisiness of context words, which influences the stability of medical concept embeddings regardless of high or low frequency. We evaluate the proposed factor by showing the linear correlation with the stability of medical concept embeddings. The correlations are clear and consistent with various groups of medical concepts. Based on the linear relations, we make suggestions on ways to adjust the noisiness of context words for the improvement of stability. Finally, we demonstrate that the linear relation of the proposed factor extends to the word embedding stability in general domain.

0.09810272 = product of:
  0.13080363 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
    0.068457395 = product of:
      0.13691479 = sum of:
        0.13691479 = weight(_text_:assessment in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13691479 = score(doc=328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.5282689 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Fake news is considered one of the main threats of our society. The aim of fake news is usually to confuse readers and trigger intense emotions to them in an attempt to be spread through social networks. Even though recent studies have explored the effectiveness of different linguistic patterns for fake news detection, the role of emotional signals has not yet been explored. In this paper, we focus on extracting emotional signals from claims and evaluating their effectiveness on credibility assessment. First, we explore different methodologies for extracting the emotional signals that can be triggered to the users when they read a claim. Then, we present emoCred, a model that is based on a long-short term memory model that incorporates emotional signals extracted from the text of the claims to differentiate between credible and non-credible ones. In addition, we perform an analysis to understand which emotional signals and which terms are the most useful for the different credibility classes. We conduct extensive experiments and a thorough analysis on real-world datasets. Our results indicate the importance of incorporating emotional signals in the credibility assessment problem.

0.08701719 = product of:
  0.11602293 = sum of:
    0.010194084 = product of:
      0.040776335 = sum of:
        0.040776335 = weight(_text_:based in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040776335 = score(doc=5985,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.08573302 = product of:
  0.17146604 = sum of:
    0.011771114 = product of:
      0.047084454 = sum of:
        0.047084454 = weight(_text_:based in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047084454 = score(doc=216,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 216, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=216)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.15969492 = weight(_text_:term in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15969492 = score(doc=216,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.7290672 = fieldWeight in 216, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=216)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Term position feature is widely and successfully used in IR and Web search engines, to enhance the retrieval effectiveness. This feature is essentially used for two purposes: to capture query terms proximity or to boost the weight of terms appearing in some parts of a document. In this paper, we are interested in this second category. We propose two novel query-independent techniques based on absolute term positions in a document, whose goal is to boost the weight of terms appearing in the beginning of a document. The first one considers only the earliest occurrence of a term in a document. The second one takes into account all term positions in a document. We formalize each of these two techniques as a document model based on term position, and then we incorporate it into a basic language model (LM). Two smoothing techniques, Dirichlet and Jelinek-Mercer, are considered in the basic LM. Experiments conducted on three TREC test collections show that our model, especially the version based on all term positions, achieves significant improvements over the baseline LMs, and it also often performs better than two state-of-the-art baseline models, the chronological term rank model and the Markov random field model.

0.071284145 = product of:
  0.14256829 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=5765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5765)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.13550562 = weight(_text_:term in 5765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13550562 = score(doc=5765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.618634 = fieldWeight in 5765, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5765)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The literature on assigned indexing considers three possible viewpoints-the author's viewpoint as evidenced in the title, the users' viewpoint, and the indexer's viewpoint-and asks whether and which of those views should be reflected in an indexer's choice of terms to assign to an item. We study this question empirically, as opposed to normatively. Based on the literature that discusses whose viewpoints should be reflected, we construct a research model that includes those same three viewpoints as factors that might be influencing term assignment in actual practice. In the unique study design that we employ, the records of term assignments made by identified indexers in academic libraries are cross-referenced with the results of a survey that those same indexers completed on political views. Our results indicate that in our setting, variance in term assignment was best explained by indexers' personal political views.

0.065863036 = product of:
  0.13172607 = sum of:
    0.0058264043 = product of:
      0.023305617 = sum of:
        0.023305617 = weight(_text_:based in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023305617 = score(doc=177,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.1647731 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.12589967 = weight(_text_:frequency in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12589967 = score(doc=177,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.45543438 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed at understanding the use of paintings outside of an art-related context, in the English version of Wikipedia. Design/methodology/approach For this investigation, the authors identified 8,104 paintings used in 10,008 articles of the English Wikipedia edition. The authors manually coded the topic of the article in question, documented the number of monthly average views and identified the originating museum. They analysed the use of images based on frequency of use, frequency of view, associated topics and location. Early in the analysis three distinct perspectives emerged: the readers of the online encyclopaedia, the editors of the articles and the museum organisations providing the painting images (directly or indirectly). Findings Wikipedia is a widely used online information resource where images of paintings serve as visual reference to illustrate articles, notably also beyond an art-related topic and where no alternative image is available - as in the case of historic portraits. Editors used paintings as illustration of the work itself or art-related movement, but also as illustration of past events, as alternative to photographs, as well as to represent a concept or technique. Images have been used to illustrate up to 76 articles, evidencing the polysemic nature of paintings. The authors conclude that images of paintings are highly valuable information sources, also beyond an art-related context. They also find that Wikipedia is an important dissemination channel for museum collections. While art-related articles contain greater number of paintings, these receive less views than non-art-related articles containing fewer paintings. Readers of all topics, predominantly history, science and geographic articles, viewed art pieces outside of an art context. Painting images in Wikipedia receive a much larger online audience than the physical painting does when compared to the number of museum onsite visitors. The authors' results confirm the presence of a strong long-tail pattern in the frequency of image use (only 3% of painting images are used in a Wikipedia article), image view and museums represented, characteristic of network dynamics of the Internet.
Research limitations/implications While this is the first analysis of the complete collection of paintings in the English Wikipedia, the authors' results are conservative as many paintings are not identified as such in Wikidata, used for automatic harvesting. Tools to analyse image view specifically are not yet available and user privacy is highly protected, limiting the disaggregation of user data. This study serves to document a lack of diversity in image availability for global online consumption, favouring well-known Western objects. At the same time, the study evidences the need to diversify the use of images to reflect a more global perspective, particularly where paintings are used to represent concepts of techniques. Practical implications Museums wanting to increase visibility can target the reuse of their collections in non-art-related articles, which received 88% of all views in the authors' sample. Given the few museums collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation and the apparent inefficiency resulting from leaving the use of paintings as illustration to the crowd, as only 3% of painting images are used, suggests further collaborative efforts to reposition museum content may be beneficial. Social implications This paper highlights the reach of Wikipedia as information source, where museum content can be positioned to reach a greater user group beyond the usual museum visitor, in turn increasing visual and digital literacy. Originality/value This is the first study that documents the frequency of use and views, the topical use and the originating institution of "all the paintings" in the English Wikipedia edition.

0.06465341 = product of:
  0.08620454 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=595,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
    0.031619113 = product of:
      0.063238226 = sum of:
        0.063238226 = weight(_text_:assessment in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063238226 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Science maps are visual representations of the structure and dynamics of scholarly knowl­edge. They aim to show how fields, disciplines, journals, scientists, publications, and scientific terms relate to each other. Science mapping is the body of methods and techniques that have been developed for generating science maps. This entry is an introduction to science maps and science mapping. It focuses on the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues of science mapping, rather than on the mathematical formulation of science mapping techniques. After a brief history of science mapping, we describe the general procedure for building a science map, presenting the data sources and the methods to select, clean, and pre-process the data. Next, we examine in detail how the most common types of science maps, namely the citation-based and the term-based, are generated. Both are based on networks: the former on the network of publications connected by citations, the latter on the network of terms co-occurring in publications. We review the rationale behind these mapping approaches, as well as the techniques and methods to build the maps (from the extraction of the network to the visualization and enrichment of the map). We also present less-common types of science maps, including co-authorship networks, interlocking editorship networks, maps based on patents' data, and geographic maps of science. Moreover, we consider how time can be represented in science maps to investigate the dynamics of science. We also discuss some epistemological and sociological topics that can help in the interpretation, contextualization, and assessment of science maps. Then, we present some possible applications of science maps in science policy. In the conclusion, we point out why science mapping may be interesting for all the branches of meta-science, from knowl­edge organization to epistemology.

0.060513463 = product of:
  0.08068462 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.058685057 = product of:
  0.07824674 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 921, 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=921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Surveillance, as a concept and social practice, is inextricably linked to information. It is, at its core, about information extraction and analysis conducted for some regulatory purpose. Yet, information science research only sporadically leverages surveillance studies scholarship, and we see a lack of sustained and focused attention to surveillance as an object of research within the domains of information behavior and social informatics. Surveillance, as a range of contextual and culturally based social practices defined by their connections to information seeking and use, should be framed as information practice-as that term is used within information behavior scholarship. Similarly, manifestations of surveillance in society are frequently perfect examples of information and communications technologies situated within everyday social and organizational structures-the very focus of social informatics research. The technological infrastructures and material artifacts of surveillance practice-surveillance technologies-can also be viewed as information tools. Framing surveillance as information practice and conceptualizing surveillance technologies as socially and contextually situated information tools can provide space for new avenues of research within the information sciences, especially within information disciplines that focus their attention on the social aspects of information and information technologies in society.

Date

22. 3.2023 11:57:47

0.058685057 = product of:
  0.07824674 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.05836718 = product of:
  0.11673436 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.11084881 = sum of:
      0.079047784 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.079047784 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04694356 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031801023 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04694356 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

0.04912588 = product of:
  0.09825176 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=960,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Data Science (DS) has emerged from the shadows of its parents-statistics and computer science-into an independent field since its origin nearly six decades ago. Its evolution and education have taken many sharp turns. We present an impressionistic study of the evolution of DS anchored to Kuhn's four stages of paradigm shifts. First, we construct the landscape of DS based on curriculum analysis of the 32 iSchools across the world offering graduate-level DS programs. Second, we paint the "field" as it emerges from the word frequency patterns, ranking, and clustering of course titles based on text mining. Third, we map the curriculum to the landscape of DS and project the same onto the Edison Data Science Framework (2017) and ACM Data Science Knowledge Areas (2021). Our study shows that the DS programs of iSchools align well with the field and correspond to the Knowledge Areas and skillsets. iSchool's DS curriculums exhibit a bias toward "data visualization" along with machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence; go light on statistics; slanted toward ontologies and health informatics; and surprisingly minimal thrust toward eScience/research data management, which we believe would add a distinctive iSchool flavor to the DS.

0.047906943 = product of:
  0.095813885 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 5918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=5918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 5918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5918)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=5918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 5918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5918)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Although collective trolling is an integral part of online communities, it has received little scholarly attention. Research on collective trolling, which involves an organized group trolling effort, is in its infancy perhaps because early works on online trolling depicted it as the deviant behavior of individuals who acted in isolation and under hidden identity. Thus, it is still unclear what collective trolling is and how it evolves. To address this gap, we collected 12,840 posts and comments pertinent to a brief, controversial, and very visible collective trolling event. The event, which surrounded Chinese rapper PG One on the Chinese microblogging platform Sina Weibo , received 40 million reads in 1 day and a lot of media attention. Based on a thematic content analysis of 480 posts, we describe the collective trolling lifecycle through five distinct stages defined by posting frequency and content of posts. We also explain the transformation of participants' roles, tactics, motives, behavioral tone, and the variations in their thematic content, stakeholder group affiliation, and roles over time. The major contributions of the study are the characterization of collective trolling, and the addition of a lifecycle model to the understanding of trolling as sociotechnical, context-dependent, and multidimensional phenomenon.

0.044085447 = product of:
  0.08817089 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 5921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=5921,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 5921, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5921)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 5921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=5921,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 5921, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5921)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The "sharing economy" has recently emerged as a major global phenomenon in practice and is consequently an important research topic. What, precisely, is meant by this term, "sharing economy"? The literature to date offers many, often incomplete and conflicting definitions. This makes it difficult for researchers to lead a coherent discourse, to compare findings and to select appropriate cases. Alternative terms (e.g., "collaborative consumption," "gig economy," and "access economy") are a further complication. To resolve this issue, our article develops a consolidated (based on all prior work) and systemic (relating to the phenomenon in its entire scope) definition of the sharing economy. The definition is based on the detailed analysis of definitions and explanations in 152 sources identified in a systematic literature review. We identify 36 original understandings of the term "sharing economy." Using semantic integration strategies, we consolidate 84 semantic facets in these definitions into 18 characteristics of the sharing economy. Resolving conflicts in the meaning and scope of these characteristics, we arrive at a consolidated, systemic definition. We evaluate the definition's appropriateness and applicability by applying it to cases claimed by the media to be examples of the sharing economy. This article's definition is useful for future research and discourse on the sharing economy.

0.04205472 = product of:
  0.08410944 = sum of:
    0.0066587473 = product of:
      0.02663499 = sum of:
        0.02663499 = weight(_text_:based in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02663499 = score(doc=5868,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 5868, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5868)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07745069 = product of:
      0.15490139 = sum of:
        0.15490139 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15490139 = score(doc=5868,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.59766793 = fieldWeight in 5868, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Most research efforts related to automatic readability assessment focus on the design of strategies that apply to a specific language. These state-of-the-art strategies are highly dependent on linguistic features that best suit the language for which they were intended, constraining their adaptability and making it difficult to determine whether they would remain effective if they were applied to estimate the level of difficulty of texts in other languages. In this article, we present the results of a study designed to determine the feasibility of a cross-lingual readability assessment strategy. For doing so, we first analyzed the most common features used for readability assessment and determined their influence on the readability prediction process of 6 different languages: English, Spanish, Basque, Italian, French, and Catalan. In addition, we developed a cross-lingual readability assessment strategy that serves as a means to empirically explore the potential advantages of employing a single strategy (and set of features) for readability assessment in different languages, including interlanguage prediction agreement and prediction accuracy improvement for low-resource languages.Friend request acceptance and information disclosure constitute 2 important privacy decisions for users to control the flow of their personal information in social network sites (SNSs). These decisions are greatly influenced by contextual characteristics of the request. However, the contextual influence may not be uniform among users with different levels of privacy concerns. In this study, we hypothesize that users with higher privacy concerns may consider contextual factors differently from those with lower privacy concerns. By conducting a scenario-based survey study and structural equation modeling, we verify the interaction effects between privacy concerns and contextual factors. We additionally find that users' perceived risk towards the requester mediates the effect of context and privacy concerns. These results extend our understanding about the cognitive process behind privacy decision making in SNSs. The interaction effects suggest strategies for SNS providers to predict user's friend request acceptance and to customize context-aware privacy decision support based on users' different privacy attitudes.

0.037407737 = product of:
  0.074815474 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A basic distinction in agent-based data-driven Database Semantics (DBS) is between language and nonlanguage cognition. Language cognition transfers content between agents by means of raw data. Nonlanguage cognition maps between content and raw data inside the focus agent. {\it Recognition} applies a concept type to raw data, resulting in a concept token. In language recognition, the focus agent (hearer) takes raw language-data (surfaces) produced by another agent (speaker) as input, while nonlanguage recognition takes raw nonlanguage-data as input. In either case, the output is a content which is stored in the agent's onboard short term memory. {\it Action} adapts a concept type to a purpose, resulting in a token. In language action, the focus agent (speaker) produces language-dependent surfaces for another agent (hearer), while nonlanguage action produces intentions for a nonlanguage purpose. In either case, the output is raw action data. As long as the procedural implementation of place holder values works properly, it is compatible with the DBS requirement of input-output equivalence between the natural prototype and the artificial reconstruction.

0.037407737 = product of:
  0.074815474 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article discusses the different meanings of 'keyword' and related terms such as 'keyphrase', 'descriptor', 'index term', 'subject heading', 'tag' and 'n-gram' and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document's potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests.

0.035897866 = product of:
  0.14359146 = sum of:
    0.14359146 = sum of:
      0.11179045 = weight(_text_:assessment in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11179045 = score(doc=330,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04694356 = queryNorm
          0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031801023 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04694356 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.