Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.051270373 = product of:
  0.12817593 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=3070,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 3070, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3070)
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3070, 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=3070)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate user experiences with a touch-wall interface featuring both clustering and categorization representations of available e-books in a public library to understand human information interactions under work-focused and recreational contexts. Design/methodology/approach - Researchers collected questionnaires from 251 New Taipei City Library visitors who used the touch-wall interface to search for new titles. The authors applied structural equation modelling to examine relationships among hedonic/utilitarian needs, clustering and categorization representations, perceived ease of use (EU) and the extent to which users experienced anxiety and uncertainty (AU) while interacting with the interface. Findings - Utilitarian users who have an explicit idea of what they intend to find tend to prefer the categorization interface. A hedonic-oriented user tends to prefer clustering interfaces. Users reported EU regardless of which interface they engaged with. Results revealed that use of the clustering interface had a negative correlation with AU. Users that seek to satisfy utilitarian needs tended to emphasize the importance of perceived EU, whilst pleasure-seeking users were a little more tolerant of anxiety or uncertainty. Originality/value - The Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) encourages library visitors to borrow digital books through the implementation of an information visualization system. This situation poses an opportunity to validate uses and gratification theory. People with hedonic/utilitarian needs displayed different risk-control attitudes and affected uncertainty using the interface. Knowledge about user interaction with such interfaces is vital when launching the development of a new OPAC.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 3870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=3870,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 3870, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3870)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Data from multiple knowledge organization systems are combined to provide a global overview of the content holdings of a small personal library. Subject headings and classification data are used to effectively map the combined book and topic space of the library. While harvested and manipulated by hand, the work reveals issues and potential solutions when using automated techniques to produce topic maps of much larger libraries. The small library visualized consists of the thirty-nine, digital, English language books found in the Osama Bin Laden (OBL) compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan upon his death. As this list of books has garnered considerable media attention, it is worth providing a visual overview of the subject content of these books - some of which is not readily apparent from the titles. Metadata from subject headings and classification numbers was combined to create book-subject maps. Tree maps of the classification data were also produced. The books contain 328 subject headings. In order to enhance the base map with meaningful thematic overlay, library holding count data was also harvested (and aggregated from duplicates). This additional data revealed the relative scarcity or popularity of individual books.

0.03225517 = product of:
  0.080637924 = sum of:
    0.052878078 = weight(_text_:books in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052878078 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.21359414 = fieldWeight in 1444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1444)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, 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=1444)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Acquiring knowledge in any field involves information retrieval, i.e. searching the available documents to identify answers to the queries concerning the selected objects. Knowing the keywords which are names of the objects will enable situating the user's query in the information space organized as a thesaurus or faceted classification. Objectives: Identification the areas in the information space which correspond to gaps in the user's personal knowledge or in the domain knowledge might become useful in theory or practice. The aim of this paper is to present a realistic information-space model of a self-authored full-text document on information culture, indexed by the author of this article. Methodology: Having established the relations between the terms, particular modules (sets of terms connected by relations used in facet classification) are situated on a plain, similarly to a communication map. Conclusions drawn from the "journey" on the map, which is a visualization of the knowledge contained in the analysed document, are the crucial part of this paper. Results: The direct result of the research is the created model of information space visualization of a given document (book, article, website). The proposed procedure can practically be used as a new form of representation in order to map the contents of academic books and articles, beside the traditional index form, especially as an e-book auxiliary tool. In teaching, visualization of the information space of a document can be used to help students understand the issues of: classification, categorization and representation of new knowledge emerging in human mind.

Source

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

0.021151232 = product of:
  0.105756156 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=580)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A dentograph is a visualization of a library's collection built on the idea that a classification scheme is a mathematical function mapping one set of things (books or the universe of knowledge) onto another (a set of numbers and letters). Dentographs can visualize aspects of just one collection or can be used to compare two or more collections. This article describes how to build them, with examples and code using Ruby and R, and discusses some problems and future directions.

0.013879924 = product of:
  0.06939962 = sum of:
    0.06939962 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06939962 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2755)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 3693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=3693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3693, 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=3693)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2010 19:36:46

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4641, 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=4641)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21.12.2018 17:22:13

0.0041639768 = product of:
  0.020819884 = sum of:
    0.020819884 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020819884 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.