Search (3982 results, page 1 of 200)

  1. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.11 
    0.112798885 = product of:
  0.2819972 = sum of:
    0.24089785 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24089785 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  2. Li, L.; He, D.; Zhang, C.; Geng, L.; Zhang, K.: Characterizing peer-judged answer quality on academic Q&A sites : a cross-disciplinary case study on ResearchGate (2018) 0.11 
    0.11256349 = product of:
  0.28140873 = sum of:
    0.24715926 = weight(_text_:answer in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24715926 = score(doc=4637,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.8452907 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
    0.034249462 = weight(_text_:22 in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034249462 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4637, 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=4637)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined. Findings The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines. Originality/value The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Doek, A.: Antwoord op elke vraag : Bilbiofoon aan een vergelijkend 'warenonderzoek' onderworpen (1994) 0.11 
    0.10647144 = product of:
  0.2661786 = sum of:
    0.21137948 = weight(_text_:answer in 7793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21137948 = score(doc=7793,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.72292304 = fieldWeight in 7793, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7793)
    0.05479914 = weight(_text_:22 in 7793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05479914 = score(doc=7793,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7793, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7793)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In the Netherlands the first 'Library-phone' service to answer questions from the general public by phone was started by Friesland Central Library Service in 1986. 7 provincial authorities currently provide library-phone services. A survey of the 7 services showed some variation in answers provided and in time taken to provide an answer. In some instances library-phone staff had failed to use up-to-date sources. However, in general all questions were answered satisfactorily
    Source
    Bibliotheek en Samenleving. 22(1994) no.2, S.26-29
  4. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.10 
    0.09635914 = product of:
  0.4817957 = sum of:
    0.4817957 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4817957 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  5. Salvesen, G.: Is the library able to find the answer? (2005) 0.09 
    0.094105534 = product of:
  0.23526382 = sum of:
    0.19416447 = weight(_text_:answer in 3009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19416447 = score(doc=3009,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.66404724 = fieldWeight in 3009, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3009)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=3009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3009, 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=3009)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    To answer this question I need a theoretical discussion of the aspects that have implication on the quality of the reference service, and an empirical study of the service. By combining theories from the field of reference service, service, goods quality and service quality, I propose six factors related to the total quality of the reference service: The library, the servicescape, the librarian, the user and the answer. From these aspects I have in this paper chosen to focus on the librarian's ability to communicate with the user. The empirical study consists of an analysis of 20 dialogs conversations between user and librarian. The analysis has its theoretical and conceptual roots in Conversation Analysis or CA.
    Date
    22. 7.2009 10:54:45
  6. Fachsystematik Bremen nebst Schlüssel 1970 ff. (1970 ff) 0.09 
    0.09399908 = product of:
  0.23499769 = sum of:
    0.20074822 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20074822 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.034249462 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034249462 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968
  7. Jong, J. de: Haalt het SISO het jaar 2000? : paneldiscussie moet oplossingen opleveren voor de problemen met het SISO (1994) 0.08 
    0.08170681 = product of:
  0.20426701 = sum of:
    0.14946787 = weight(_text_:answer in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14946787 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.5111838 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
    0.05479914 = weight(_text_:22 in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05479914 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In the Netherlands the SISO general classification scheme is criticised by staff of small libraries as too user hostile, and by staff in larger libraries, as lacking detailed subject divisions. To answer such criticism the Nederlands Bibliotheek en Lektuur Centrum has set up a Committee to examine the future of SISO. The Committee has announced plans for the creation of a series of panel discussions to enable staff from all types of library to air their views
    Source
    Bibliotheek en samenleving. 22(1994) no.6, S.10-11
  8. Chua, A.Y.K.; Banerjee, S.: So fast so good : an analysis of answer quality and answer speed in community Question-answering sites (2013) 0.08 
    0.08143943 = product of:
  0.40719712 = sum of:
    0.40719712 = weight(_text_:answer in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40719712 = score(doc=1086,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        1.3926241 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The authors investigate the interplay between answer quality and answer speed across question types in community question-answering sites (CQAs). The research questions addressed are the following: (a) How do answer quality and answer speed vary across question types? (b) How do the relationships between answer quality and answer speed vary across question types? (c) How do the best quality answers and the fastest answers differ in terms of answer quality and answer speed across question types? (d) How do trends in answer quality vary over time across question types? From the posting of 3,000 questions in six CQAs, 5,356 answers were harvested and analyzed. There was a significant difference in answer quality and answer speed across question types, and there were generally no significant relationships between answer quality and answer speed. The best quality answers had better overall answer quality than the fastest answers but generally took longer to arrive. In addition, although the trend in answer quality had been mostly random across all question types, the quality of answers appeared to improve gradually when given time. By highlighting the subtle nuances in answer quality and answer speed across question types, this study is an attempt to explore a territory of CQA research that has hitherto been relatively uncharted.
  9. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.08 
    0.08029929 = product of:
  0.40149644 = sum of:
    0.40149644 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40149644 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  10. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.08 
    0.07985359 = product of:
  0.19963397 = sum of:
    0.15853462 = weight(_text_:answer in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15853462 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.5421923 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
  11. Witt, M.: Survey on the use of the catalogue at the Mediatheque of the Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie (CSI) (1993) 0.07 
    0.07149346 = product of:
  0.17873365 = sum of:
    0.13078439 = weight(_text_:answer in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13078439 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.44728583 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
    0.047949247 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047949247 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, 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=7914)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The library of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie attracts 4.000 visitors daily of whom 25% consult the GEAC system OPAC. Describes a 1992 survey consisting of online questions followed by an interview. The questionnaires were adapted from ones used in the UK and utilised OLIVE (Online Interactive Validation and Evaluation). While difficulties arose from users' inconsistency in their replies and failures to answer questions, it has become clear that subject access is unsatisfactory, sometimes because of mistyping by the searcher but also because of the vocabulary problems and lack of guidance in search strategies
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71
  12. Hemminger, B.M.; Losi, T.; Bauers, A.: Survey of bioinformatics programs in the United States. (2005) 0.07 
    0.07149346 = product of:
  0.17873365 = sum of:
    0.13078439 = weight(_text_:answer in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13078439 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.44728583 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
    0.047949247 = weight(_text_:22 in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047949247 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5264, 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=5264)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a rapidly growing field, and educational programs for bioinformatics are increasing at a similar pace to answer the demand for qualified professionals. Here we survey currently available bioinformatics programs. We have compiled summaries of these programs, including university, state, degree type, department, entrance requirements, degree requirements, links to course Web pages, research interests, and funding. Complete details are presented in the Web version, and an abbreviated listing of the primary attributes of all programs is included in this article.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:41:40
  13. Kim, S.; Oh, S.: Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site (2009) 0.07 
    0.06654465 = product of:
  0.16636163 = sum of:
    0.13211218 = weight(_text_:answer in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13211218 = score(doc=2756,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.4518269 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
    0.034249462 = weight(_text_:22 in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034249462 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2756, 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=2756)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study examines the criteria questioners use to select the best answers in a social Q&A site (Yahoo! Answers) within the theoretical framework of relevance research. A social Q&A site is a novel environment where people voluntarily ask and answer questions. In Yahoo! Answers, the questioner selects the answer that best satisfies his or her question and leaves comments on it. Under the assumption that the comments reflect the reasons why questioners select particular answers as the best, this study analyzed 2,140 comments collected from Yahoo! Answers during December 2007. The content analysis identified 23 individual relevance criteria in six classes: Content, Cognitive, Utility, Information Sources, Extrinsic, and Socioemotional. A major finding is that the selection criteria used in a social Q&A site have considerable overlap with many relevance criteria uncovered in previous relevance studies, but that the scope of socio-emotional criteria has been expanded to include the social aspect of this environment. Another significant finding is that the relative importance of individual criteria varies according to topic categories. Socioemotional criteria are popular in discussion-oriented categories, content-oriented criteria in topic-oriented categories, and utility criteria in self-help categories. This study generalizes previous relevance studies to a new environment by going beyond an academic setting.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:57:23
  14. Schrodt, R.: Tiefen und Untiefen im wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch (2008) 0.06 
    0.064239435 = product of:
  0.32119715 = sum of:
    0.32119715 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32119715 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  15. Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978) 0.06 
    0.064239435 = product of:
  0.32119715 = sum of:
    0.32119715 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32119715 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4286301 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
  16. Library of Congress response to Library of Congress Subject Headings "Is Euthanasia the Answer?" (1987) 0.06 
    0.06341385 = product of:
  0.31706923 = sum of:
    0.31706923 = weight(_text_:answer in 523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31706923 = score(doc=523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        1.0843846 = fieldWeight in 523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=523)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Antwort auf: Henige, D.: Library of Congress Subject Headings: is euthanasia the answer?
  17. Mood, T.A.: Of sundials and digital watches : a further step toward the new paradigm of reference (1994) 0.06 
    0.0612801 = product of:
  0.15320025 = sum of:
    0.11210091 = weight(_text_:answer in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11210091 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.38338786 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The new paradigm of reference, in which the reference librarian becomes a consultant more than a quick-answer specialist, needs to be stretched, Mood advocates. Rather than assisting people with their research, the reference librarian needs to do the research for them. After an interview to assess the user's needs, the librarian searches various print and nonprint access tools, then presents to the patron a bibliography of sources and - possibly - copies of articles and books. This new approach to reference is needed because of both the increasing complication of libraries, with their myriad computer access points to information, and the increasing number of patrons who want information but do not want to learn how to retrieve it. This change in library reference can be implemented with better signage, more prepackaging of information, and an increased knowledge of the local community's information needs
    Source
    Reference services review. 22(1994) no.3, S.27-32
  18. Bearman, D.: How the information revolution might affect us professionally (1997) 0.06 
    0.0612801 = product of:
  0.15320025 = sum of:
    0.11210091 = weight(_text_:answer in 1384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11210091 = score(doc=1384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.38338786 = fieldWeight in 1384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1384)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=1384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1384, 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=1384)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The speed at which technological change will take place has been overestimated, and the fundamental nature of that change, underestimated. The focus will switch from information products to information processes. Looks at how this will impact the information profession as they seek to orient users in information spaces that they did not build. In the electronic environment, information professionals will need to facilitate the entire research process, not just information discovery. Using lessons learnt from archives, explains how metadata strategies wil ne needed to organize the information space, and new approaches to training will be required to help the next generation of information professionals manage metadata structures. A question and answer session followed the lecture
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 22(1997) no.1, S.38-55
  19. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.06 
    0.0612801 = product of:
  0.15320025 = sum of:
    0.11210091 = weight(_text_:answer in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11210091 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.38338786 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  20. Clarke, R.I.: Cataloging research by design : a taxonomic approach to understanding research questions in cataloging (2018) 0.06 
    0.0612801 = product of:
  0.15320025 = sum of:
    0.11210091 = weight(_text_:answer in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11210091 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29239556 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.38338786 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7833843 = idf(docFreq=369, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
    0.04109935 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04109935 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17704502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050557863 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article asserts that many research questions (RQs) in cataloging reflect design-based RQs, rather than traditional scientific ones. To support this idea, a review of existing discussions of RQs is presented to identify prominent types of RQs, including design-based RQs. RQ types are then classified into a taxonomic framework and compared with RQs from the Everyday Cataloger Concerns project, which aimed to identify important areas of research from the perspective of practicing catalogers. This comparative method demonstrates the ways in which the research areas identified by cataloging practitioners reflect design RQs-and therefore require design approaches and methods to answer them.
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:14:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 3336
  • m 371
  • el 182
  • s 144
  • b 40
  • x 38
  • i 26
  • r 19
  • ? 8
  • n 4
  • p 4
  • d 3
  • u 2
  • z 2
  • au 1
  • h 1
  • vi 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications