Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Greenberg, J."
  1. Shoffner, M.; Greenberg, J.; Kramer-Duffield, J.; Woodbury, D.: Web 2.0 semantic systems : collaborative learning in science (2008) 0.06
    0.056065753 = product of:
      0.112131506 = sum of:
        0.09923182 = weight(_text_:space in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09923182 = score(doc=2661,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.39944884 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
        0.012899691 = product of:
          0.025799382 = sum of:
            0.025799382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025799382 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047605187 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  2. Greenberg, J.; Murillo, A.; Ogletree, A.; Boyles, R.; Martin, N.; Romeo, C.: Metadata capital : automating metadata workflows in the NIEHS viral vector core laboratory (2014) 0.05
    0.046265293 = product of:
      0.18506117 = sum of:
        0.18506117 = weight(_text_:vector in 1566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18506117 = score(doc=1566,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30654848 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.603693 = fieldWeight in 1566, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1566)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents research examining metadata capital in the context of the Viral Vector Core Laboratory at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Methods include collaborative workflow modeling and a metadata analysis. Models of the laboratory's workflow and metadata activity are generated to identify potential opportunities for defining microservices that may be supported by iRODS rules. Generic iRODS rules are also shared along with images of the iRODS prototype. The discussion includes an exploration of a modified capital sigma equation to understand metadata as an asset. The work aims to raise awareness of metadata as an asset and to incentivize investment in metadata R&D.
  3. Li, K.; Greenberg, J.; Dunic, J.: Data objects and documenting scientific processes : an analysis of data events in biodiversity data papers (2020) 0.02
    0.017903598 = product of:
      0.07161439 = sum of:
        0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 5615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07161439 = score(doc=5615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 5615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5615)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The data paper, an emerging scholarly genre, describes research data sets and is intended to bridge the gap between the publication of research data and scientific articles. Research examining how data papers report data events, such as data transactions and manipulations, is limited. The research reported on in this article addresses this limitation and investigated how data events are inscribed in data papers. A content analysis was conducted examining the full texts of 82 data papers, drawn from the curated list of data papers connected to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Data events recorded for each paper were organized into a set of 17 categories. Many of these categories are described together in the same sentence, which indicates the messiness of data events in the laboratory space. The findings challenge the degrees to which data papers are a distinct genre compared to research articles and they describe data-centric research processes in a through way. This article also discusses how our results could inform a better data publication ecosystem in the future.
  4. Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.; White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data (2012) 0.01
    0.014226683 = product of:
      0.056906734 = sum of:
        0.056906734 = sum of:
          0.031107351 = weight(_text_:model in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031107351 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047605187 = queryNorm
              0.16993658 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
          0.025799382 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.025799382 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047605187 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.
  5. White, H.C.; Carrier, S.; Thompson, A.; Greenberg, J.; Scherle, R.: ¬The Dryad Data Repository : a Singapore framework metadata architecture in a DSpace environment (2008) 0.01
    0.0056436146 = product of:
      0.022574458 = sum of:
        0.022574458 = product of:
          0.045148917 = sum of:
            0.045148917 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045148917 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047605187 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  6. Greenberg, J.; Mayer-Patel, K.; Trujillo, S.: YouTube: applying FRBR and exploring the multiple description coding compression model (2012) 0.00
    0.0048605236 = product of:
      0.019442094 = sum of:
        0.019442094 = product of:
          0.03888419 = sum of:
            0.03888419 = weight(_text_:model in 1930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03888419 = score(doc=1930,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047605187 = queryNorm
                0.21242073 = fieldWeight in 1930, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1930)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
  7. White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014) 0.00
    0.0040311534 = product of:
      0.016124614 = sum of:
        0.016124614 = product of:
          0.032249227 = sum of:
            0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032249227 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047605187 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.