Search (3667 results, page 2 of 184)

0.056981597 = product of:
  0.113963194 = sum of:
    0.113963194 = product of:
      0.22792639 = sum of:
        0.22792639 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22792639 = score(doc=870,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.5594181 = fieldWeight in 870, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Natural language understanding comprises a wide range of diverse tasks such as textual entailment, question answering, semantic similarity assessment, and document classification. Although large unlabeled text corpora are abundant, labeled data for learning these specific tasks is scarce, making it challenging for discriminatively trained models to perform adequately. We demonstrate that large gains on these tasks can be realized by generative pre-training of a language model on a diverse corpus of unlabeled text, followed by discriminative fine-tuning on each specific task. In contrast to previous approaches, we make use of task-aware input transformations during fine-tuning to achieve effective transfer while requiring minimal changes to the model architecture. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a wide range of benchmarks for natural language understanding. Our general task-agnostic model outperforms discriminatively trained models that use architectures specifically crafted for each task, significantly improving upon the state of the art in 9 out of the 12 tasks studied. For instance, we achieve absolute improvements of 8.9% on commonsense reasoning (Stories Cloze Test), 5.7% on question answering (RACE), and 1.5% on textual entailment (MultiNLI).

0.051122215 = product of:
  0.10224443 = sum of:
    0.10224443 = product of:
      0.30673328 = sum of:
        0.30673328 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30673328 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40932843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.

0.051122215 = product of:
  0.10224443 = sum of:
    0.10224443 = product of:
      0.30673328 = sum of:
        0.30673328 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30673328 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40932843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=1105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Topic ontologies or web directories consist of large collections of links to websites, arranged by topic in different categories. The structure of these ontologies is typically not flat because there are hierarchical and nonhierarchical relationships among topics. As a consequence, websites classified under a certain topic may be relevant to other topics. Although some of these relevance relations are explicit, most of them must be discovered by an analysis of the structure of the ontologies. This article proposes a family of models of relevance propagation in topic ontologies. An efficient computational framework is described and used to compute nine different models for a portion of the Open Directory Project graph consisting of more than half a million nodes and approximately 1.5 million edges of different types. After performing a quantitative analysis, a user study was carried out to compare the most promising models. It was found that some general difficulties rule out the possibility of defining flawless models of relevance propagation that only take into account structural aspects of an ontology. However, there is a clear indication that including transitive relations induced by the nonhierarchical components of the ontology results in relevance propagation models that are superior to more basic approaches.

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 1824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=1824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 1824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the adoption of faceted search in a small number of academic libraries in 2006, faceted search interfaces have gained popularity in academic and public libraries. This article clarifies whether faceted search improves the interactions between searchers and library catalogs and sheds light on ways that facets are used during a library search. To study searchers' behaviors in natural situations, we collected from the servers a data set with more than 1.5 million useful search logs. Logs were parsed, statistically analyzed, and manually studied using visualization tools to gain a general understanding of how facets are used in the search process. A user experiment with 24 subjects was conducted to further understand contextual information, such as the searchers' motivations and perceptions. The results indicate that most searchers were able to understand the concept of facets naturally and easily. The faceted search was not able to shorten the search time but was able to improve the search accuracy. Facets were used more for open-ended tasks and difficult tasks that require more effort to learn, investigate, and explore. Overall, the results weaved a detailed "story" about the ways that people use facets and the ways that facets help people use library catalogs.

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=3075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 3075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Twitter has emerged as a popular source of sharing and delivering news information. In tweet messages, URLs to web resources and hashtags are often included. This study investigates the potential of the hyperlinks and hashtags as topical clues and indicators to tweet messages. For this study, we crawled and analyzed about 1.5 million tweets for a 3-month period covering any topic or subject. The findings of this study revealed a power law relationship for the ranking and frequency of (a) the host names of URLs, and (b) a pair of hashtags and URLs that appeared in the tweet messages. This study also discovered that the most popular URLs used in tweets come from news and media websites, and a majority of the hyperlinked resources are news web pages. One implication of this study is that Twitter users are becoming more active in sharing already published information than producing new information. Finally, our investigation on hashtags for web resource indexing reveals that hashtags have the potential to be used as indexing terms for co-occurring URLs in the same tweet. We also discuss the implications of this study for web resource recommendation.

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.045790035 = product of:
  0.09158007 = sum of:
    0.09158007 = product of:
      0.18316014 = sum of:
        0.18316014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18316014 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            1.0833232 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 9.2011 12:28:22

0.045790035 = product of:
  0.09158007 = sum of:
    0.09158007 = product of:
      0.18316014 = sum of:
        0.18316014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18316014 = score(doc=2818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            1.0833232 = fieldWeight in 2818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 19:49:25

0.045790035 = product of:
  0.09158007 = sum of:
    0.09158007 = product of:
      0.18316014 = sum of:
        0.18316014 = weight(_text_:22 in 4315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18316014 = score(doc=4315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            1.0833232 = fieldWeight in 4315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=4315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 19:49:25

0.045790035 = product of:
  0.09158007 = sum of:
    0.09158007 = product of:
      0.18316014 = sum of:
        0.18316014 = weight(_text_:22 in 7400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18316014 = score(doc=7400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            1.0833232 = fieldWeight in 7400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=7400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 19:49:25

0.04473194 = product of:
  0.08946388 = sum of:
    0.08946388 = product of:
      0.26839164 = sum of:
        0.26839164 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26839164 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40932843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.04473194 = product of:
  0.08946388 = sum of:
    0.08946388 = product of:
      0.26839164 = sum of:
        0.26839164 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26839164 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40932843 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.0392486 = product of:
  0.0784972 = sum of:
    0.0784972 = product of:
      0.1569944 = sum of:
        0.1569944 = weight(_text_:22 in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1569944 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.92856276 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.1875 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2007 19:43:53

0.0392486 = product of:
  0.0784972 = sum of:
    0.0784972 = product of:
      0.1569944 = sum of:
        0.1569944 = weight(_text_:22 in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1569944 = score(doc=580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.92856276 = fieldWeight in 580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.1875 = fieldNorm(doc=580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:50

0.0392486 = product of:
  0.0784972 = sum of:
    0.0784972 = product of:
      0.1569944 = sum of:
        0.1569944 = weight(_text_:22 in 777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1569944 = score(doc=777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.92856276 = fieldWeight in 777, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.1875 = fieldNorm(doc=777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 2.1998 9:45:22

0.0392486 = product of:
  0.0784972 = sum of:
    0.0784972 = product of:
      0.1569944 = sum of:
        0.1569944 = weight(_text_:22 in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1569944 = score(doc=942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.92856276 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.1875 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 2.2008 12:22:10

0.0392486 = product of:
  0.0784972 = sum of:
    0.0784972 = product of:
      0.1569944 = sum of:
        0.1569944 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1569944 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.92856276 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.1875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2.10.1996 17:14:22