Search (259 results, page 1 of 13)

0.13456818 = product of:
  0.17942424 = sum of:
    0.050382458 = weight(_text_:web in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050382458 = score(doc=558,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
    0.07377557 = weight(_text_:search in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377557 = score(doc=558,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
    0.05526622 = product of:
      0.11053244 = sum of:
        0.11053244 = weight(_text_:engine in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053244 = score(doc=558,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41792953 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Web search is commonly used by fact checking systems as a source of evidence for claim verification. In this work, we demonstrate that the task of retrieving pages useful for fact checking, called evidential pages, is indeed different from the task of retrieving topically relevant pages that are typically optimized by search engines; thus, it should be handled differently. We conduct a comprehensive study on the performance of retrieving evidential pages over a test collection we developed for the task of re-ranking Web pages by usefulness for fact-checking. Results show that pages (retrieved by a commercial search engine) that are topically relevant to a claim are not always useful for verifying it, and that the engine's performance in retrieving evidential pages is weakly correlated with retrieval of topically relevant pages. Additionally, we identify types of evidence in evidential pages and some linguistic cues that can help predict page usefulness. Moreover, preliminary experiments show that a retrieval model leveraging those cues has a higher performance compared to the search engine. Finally, we show that existing systems have a long way to go to support effective fact checking. To that end, our work provides insights to guide design of better future systems for the task.

0.100029156 = product of:
  0.20005831 = sum of:
    0.10433441 = weight(_text_:search in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10433441 = score(doc=150,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.60717577 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.095723905 = product of:
      0.19144781 = sum of:
        0.19144781 = weight(_text_:engine in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19144781 = score(doc=150,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.72387516 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Previous research has found that improved search engine effectiveness-evaluated using a batch-style approach-does not always translate to significant improvements in user task performance; however, these prior studies focused on simple recall and precision-based search tasks. We investigated the same relationship, but for realistic, complex search tasks required in clinical decision making. One hundred and nine clinicians and final year medical students answered 16 clinical questions. Although the search engine did improve answer accuracy by 20 percentage points, there was no significant difference when participants used a more effective, state-of-the-art search engine. We also found that the search engine effectiveness difference, identified in the lab, was diminished by around 70% when the search engines were used with real users. Despite the aid of the search engine, half of the clinical questions were answered incorrectly. We further identified the relative contribution of search engine effectiveness to the overall end task success. We found that the ability to interpret documents correctly was a much more important factor impacting task success. If these findings are representative, information retrieval research may need to reorient its emphasis towards helping users to better understand information, rather than just finding it for them.

0.09984501 = product of:
  0.13312668 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
    0.08729243 = weight(_text_:search in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08729243 = score(doc=563,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

While it is clear that using a mobile device can interrupt real-world activities such as walking or driving, the effects of interruptions on mobile device use have been under-studied. We are particularly interested in how the ambient distraction of walking while using a mobile device, combined with the occurrence of simulated interruptions of different levels of cognitive complexity, affect web search activities. We have established an experimental design to study how the degree of cognitive complexity of simulated interruptions influences both objective and subjective search task performance. In a controlled laboratory study (n = 27), quantitative and qualitative data were collected on mobile search performance, perceptions of the interruptions, and how participants reacted to the interruptions, using a custom mobile eye-tracking app, a questionnaire, and observations. As expected, more cognitively complex interruptions resulted in increased overall task completion times and higher perceived impacts. Interestingly, the effect on the resumption lag or the actual search performance was not significant, showing the resiliency of people to resume their tasks after an interruption. Implications from this study enhance our understanding of how interruptions objectively and subjectively affect search task performance, motivating the need for providing explicit mobile search support to enable recovery from interruptions.

Date

3. 5.2022 13:22:33

0.074292876 = product of:
  0.14858575 = sum of:
    0.093319535 = weight(_text_:search in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093319535 = score(doc=156,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.05526622 = product of:
      0.11053244 = sum of:
        0.11053244 = weight(_text_:engine in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053244 = score(doc=156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41792953 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Making use of search systems to foster learning is an emerging research trend known as search as learning. Earlier works identified result diversification as a useful technique to support learning-oriented search, since diversification ensures a comprehensive coverage of various aspects of the queried topic in the result list. Inspired by this finding, first we define a new research problem, multidimensional result diversification, in the context of educational search. We argue that in a search engine for the education domain, it is necessary to diversify results across multiple dimensions, that is, not only for the topical aspects covered by the retrieved documents, but also for other dimensions, such as the type of the document (e.g., text, video, etc.) or its intellectual level (say, for beginners/experts). Second, we propose a framework that extends the probabilistic and supervised diversification methods to take into account the coverage of such multiple dimensions. We demonstrate its effectiveness upon a newly developed test collection based on a real-life educational search engine. Thorough experiments based on gathered relevance annotations reveal that the proposed framework outperforms the baseline by up to 2.4%. An alternative evaluation utilizing user clicks also yields improvements of up to 2% w.r.t. various metrics.

0.0693705 = product of:
  0.092494 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5844, 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=5844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper investigates how school teachers look for informational texts for their classrooms. Access to current, varied and authentic informational texts improves learning outcomes for K-12 students, but many teachers lack resources to expand and update readings. The Web offers freely available resources, but finding suitable ones is time-consuming. This research lays the groundwork for building tools to ease that burden. Design/methodology/approach This paper reports qualitative findings from a study in two stages: (1) a set of semistructured interviews, based on the critical incident technique, eliciting teachers' information-seeking practices and challenges; and (2) observations of teachers using a prototype teaching-oriented news search tool under a think-aloud protocol. Findings Teachers articulated different objectives and ways of using readings in their classrooms, goals and self-reported practices varied by experience level. Teachers struggled to formulate queries that are likely to return readings on specific course topics, instead searching directly for abstract topics. Experience differences did not translate into observable differences in search skill or success in the lab study. Originality/value There is limited work on teachers' information-seeking practices, particularly on how teachers look for texts for classroom use. This paper describes how teachers look for information in this context, setting the stage for future development and research on how to support this use case. Understanding and supporting teachers looking for information is a rich area for future research, due to the complexity of the information need and the fact that teachers are not looking for information for themselves.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06804165 = product of:
  0.1360833 = sum of:
    0.08081709 = weight(_text_:search in 151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08081709 = score(doc=151,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 151, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=151)
    0.05526622 = product of:
      0.11053244 = sum of:
        0.11053244 = weight(_text_:engine in 151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053244 = score(doc=151,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41792953 = fieldWeight in 151, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Making use of search systems to foster learning is an emerging research trend known as search as learning. Earlier works identified result diversification as a useful technique to support learning-oriented search, since diversification ensures a comprehensive coverage of various aspects of the queried topic in the result list. Inspired by this finding, first we define a new research problem, multidimensional result diversification, in the context of educational search. We argue that in a search engine for the education domain, it is necessary to diversify results across multiple dimensions, that is, not only for the topical aspects covered by the retrieved documents, but also for other dimensions, such as the type of the document (e.g., text, video, etc.) or its intellectual level (say, for beginners/experts). Second, we propose a framework that extends the probabilistic and supervised diversification methods to take into account the coverage of such multiple dimensions. We demonstrate its effectiveness upon a newly developed test collection based on a real-life educational search engine. Thorough experiments based on gathered relevance annotations reveal that the proposed framework outperforms the baseline by up to 2.4%. An alternative evaluation utilizing user clicks also yields improvements of up to 2% w.r.t. various metrics.

0.068028435 = product of:
  0.13605687 = sum of:
    0.09872905 = weight(_text_:web in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09872905 = score(doc=79,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
    0.03732781 = weight(_text_:search in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03732781 = score(doc=79,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.066199325 = product of:
  0.13239865 = sum of:
    0.093319535 = weight(_text_:search in 5943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093319535 = score(doc=5943,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 5943, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5943)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 5943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=5943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 5943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It is now common for individuals to have multiple computing devices, such as laptops, smart phones, and tablets. This multidevice environment increases the popularity of cross-device search activities. Cross-device search can be seen as a special case of cross-session search. Previous studies regarded re-finding behaviors in cross-session search as task resumption. Based on this, this article proposes considering 2 phases of cross-device search: task preparation and task resumption and to explore their features by modeling. A within-subject user experiment was designed to collect data. Four groups of features were captured from specific behaviors of querying, clicking, gazing, and cognition. This article tested 3 machine-learning methods and found that the C5.0 decision tree performed best. Five features were included in the task preparation behavior model, and 3 in the task resumption behavior model. The difference and relationship between task preparation and task resumption were investigated by comparing their behavioral features. It is concluded that information need remains blurred in task preparation and becomes clear in task resumption. The changing states of information need suggest an exploratory process in cross-device search. We also identify some implications for search engine designers.

0.064520895 = product of:
  0.12904179 = sum of:
    0.07377557 = weight(_text_:search in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377557 = score(doc=1022,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
    0.05526622 = product of:
      0.11053244 = sum of:
        0.11053244 = weight(_text_:engine in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053244 = score(doc=1022,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41792953 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.

0.06036425 = product of:
  0.1207285 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=542,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This opinion piece takes Google's response to the so-called COVID-19 infodemic, as a starting point to argue for the need to consider societal relevance as a complement to other types of relevance. The authors maintain that if information science wants to be a discipline at the forefront of research on relevance, search engines, and their use, then the information science research community needs to address itself to the challenges and conditions that commercial search engines create in. The article concludes with a tentative list of related research topics.

0.05930443 = product of:
  0.11860886 = sum of:
    0.06581937 = weight(_text_:web in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06581937 = score(doc=954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
    0.052789498 = weight(_text_:search in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052789498 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"1. Use a range of different media 2. Access paywalled media content 3. Use an advertising and tracking blocker 4. Use alternatives to Google Search 5. Use alternatives to YouTube 6. Use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter 7. Caution with Wikipedia 8. Web browser, email, and internet access 9. Access books and scientific papers 10. Access deleted web content"

0.058955662 = product of:
  0.117911324 = sum of:
    0.07125156 = weight(_text_:web in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07125156 = score(doc=585,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study aims to assess the localization of Schema.org for manuscript description in the Iranian-Islamic information context using documentary and qualitative content analysis. The schema.org introduces schemas for different Web content objects so as to generate structured data. Given that the structure of Schema.org is ontological, the inheritance of the manuscript types from the properties of their parent types, as well as the localization and description of the specific properties of the manuscripts in the Iranian-Islamic information context were investigated in order to improve their indexability and semantic visibility in the Web search engines. The proposed properties specific to the manuscript type and the six proposed properties to be added to the "CreativeWork" type are found to be consistent with other schema properties. In turn, these properties lead to the localization of the existing schema for the manuscript type compatibility with the Iranian-Islamic information context. This schema is also applicable to centers with published records on the Web, and if markup with these properties, their indexability and semantic visibility in Web search engines increases accordingly. The generation of structured data in the Web environment through this schema is deemed to promote the concept of the Semantic Web, and make data and knowledge retrieval easier.

0.053023666 = product of:
  0.10604733 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=5719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
    0.06532367 = weight(_text_:search in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06532367 = score(doc=5719,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The VOSviewer software provides easy access to bibliometric mapping using data from Dimensions, Scopus and Web of Science. The properly formatted and structured citation data, and the ease in which it can be exported open up new avenues for use during citation searches and eference interviews. This paper details specific techniques for using advanced searches in Dimensions, exporting the citation data, and drawing insights from the maps produced in VOS Viewer. These search techniques and data export practices are fast and accurate enough to build into reference interviews for graduate students, faculty, and post-PhD researchers. The search results derived from them are accurate and allow a more comprehensive view of citation networks embedded in ordinary complex boolean searches.

0.053023666 = product of:
  0.10604733 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
    0.06532367 = weight(_text_:search in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06532367 = score(doc=833,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In den letzten Jahren ist das Angebot an Academic Search Engines für die Recherche nach Fachliteratur zu allen Wissenschaftsgebieten stark angewachsen und ergänzt die beliebten kommerziellen Angebote wie Web of Science oder Scopus. Der Artikel zeigt die wesentlichen Unterschiede zwischen bibliothekarischen Discovery-Systemen und Academic Search Engines wie Base, Dimensions oder Open Alex auf und diskutiert Möglichkeiten, wie beide von einander profitieren können. Diese Entwicklungsperspektiven betreffen Aspekte wie die Kontextualisierung von Wissen, die Datenmodellierung, die automatischen Datenanreicherung sowie den Zuschnitt von Suchräumen.

0.052532993 = product of:
  0.10506599 = sum of:
    0.06598687 = weight(_text_:search in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598687 = score(doc=5613,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Understanding search engine users' intents has been a popular study in information retrieval, which directly affects the quality of retrieved information. One of the fundamental problems in this field is to find a connection between the entity in a query and the potential intents of the users, the latter of which would further reveal important information for facilitating the users' future actions. In this article, we present a novel research method for mining the actionable intents for search users, by generating a ranked list of the potentially most informative actions based on a massive pool of action samples. We compare different search strategies and their combinations for retrieving the action pool and develop three criteria for measuring the informativeness of the selected action samples, that is, the significance of an action sample within the pool, the representativeness of an action sample for the other candidate samples, and the diverseness of an action sample with respect to the selected actions. Our experiment, based on the Action Mining (AM) query entity data set from the Actionable Knowledge Graph (AKG) task at NTCIR-13, suggests that the proposed approach is effective in generating an informative and early-satisfying ranking of potential actions for search users.

0.049141705 = product of:
  0.09828341 = sum of:
    0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041137107 = score(doc=464,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
    0.057146307 = weight(_text_:search in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057146307 = score(doc=464,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In recent years, different cultural institutions have made efforts to spread culture through the construction of a unique search interface that integrates their digital objects and facilitates data retrieval for lay users. However, integrating cultural data is not a trivial task; therefore, this work performs a systematic literature review on data aggregation workflows, in order to answer five questions: What are the projects? What are the planned steps? Which technologies are used? Are the steps performed manually, automatically, or semi-automatically? Which perform semantic search? The searches were carried out in three databases: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Scopus and Web of Science. In Q01, 12 projects were selected. In Q02, 9 stages were identified: Harvesting, Ingestion, Mapping, Indexing, Storing, Monitoring, Enriching, Displaying, and Publishing LOD. In Q03, 19 different technologies were found it. In Q04, we identified that most of the solutions are semi-automatic and, in Q05, that most of them perform a semantic search. The analysis of the workflows allowed us to identify that there is no consensus regarding the stages, their nomenclatures, and technologies, besides presenting superficial discussions. But it allowed to identify the main steps for the implementation of the aggregation of cultural data.

0.0487815 = product of:
  0.097563 = sum of:
    0.08081709 = weight(_text_:search in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08081709 = score(doc=5617,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In a digital library, book search is one of the most important information services. However, with the rapid development of network technologies such as cloud computing, the server-side of a digital library is becoming more and more untrusted; thus, how to prevent the disclosure of users' book query privacy is causing people's increasingly extensive concern. In this article, we propose to construct a group of plausible fake queries for each user book query to cover up the sensitive subjects behind users' queries. First, we propose a basic framework for the privacy protection in book search, which requires no change to the book search algorithm running on the server-side, and no compromise to the accuracy of book search. Second, we present a privacy protection model for book search to formulate the constraints that ideal fake queries should satisfy, that is, (i) the feature similarity, which measures the confusion effect of fake queries on users' queries, and (ii) the privacy exposure, which measures the cover-up effect of fake queries on users' sensitive subjects. Third, we discuss the algorithm implementation for the privacy model. Finally, the effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated by theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation.

Date

6. 1.2020 17:22:25

0.047296606 = product of:
  0.06306214 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. A survey study is used to approach what their information needs are, how these needs change during an engineering design project and how their information-seeking behaviours have been influenced by the newly developed information technologies (ITs). Through an in-depth analysis of the survey results, the key functions have been identified for the next-generation management systems. Design/methodology/approach The paper first proposed four hypotheses on the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of young engineers. Then, a survey study was undertaken to understand their information usage in terms of the information needs and information-seeking behaviours during a complete engineering design process. Through analysing the survey results, several findings were obtained and on this basis, further comparisons were made to discuss and evaluate the hypotheses. Findings The paper has revealed that the engineering designers' information needs will evolve throughout the engineering design project; thus, they should be assisted at several different levels. Although they intend to search information and knowledge on know-what and know-how, what they really require is the know-why knowledge in order to help them complete design tasks. Also, the paper has shown how the newly developed ITs and web-based applications have influenced the engineers' information-seeking practices. Research limitations/implications The research subjects chosen in this study are engineering students in universities who, although not as experienced as engineers in companies, do go through a complete design process with the tasks similar to industrial scenarios. In addition, the focus of this study is to understand the information-seeking behaviours of a new generation of design engineers, so that the development of next-generation information and knowledge management systems can be well informed. In this sense, the results obtained do reveal some new knowledge about the information-seeking behaviours during a general design process. Practical implications This paper first identifies the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. On this basis, the varied ways to meet these needs and behaviours are discussed and elaborated. This intends to provide the key characteristics for the development of the next-generation knowledge management system for engineering design projects. Originality/value This paper proposes a novel means of exploring the future engineers' information needs and information-seeking behaviours in a collaborative working environment. It also characterises the key features and functions for the next generation of knowledge management systems for engineering design.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.047262065 = product of:
  0.09452413 = sum of:
    0.065435804 = product of:
      0.1963074 = sum of:
        0.1963074 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1963074 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41914827 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.045448855 = product of:
  0.09089771 = sum of:
    0.03490599 = weight(_text_:web in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03490599 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
    0.055991717 = weight(_text_:search in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055991717 = score(doc=640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Involving users in early phases of software development has become a common strategy as it enables developers to consider user needs from the beginning. Once a system is in production, new opportunities to observe, evaluate and learn from users emerge as more information becomes available. Gathering information from users to continuously evaluate their behavior is a common practice for commercial software, while the Cranfield paradigm remains the preferred option for Information Retrieval (IR) and recommendation systems in the academic world. Here we introduce the Infrastructures for Living Labs STELLA project which aims to create an evaluation infrastructure allowing experimental systems to run along production web-based academic search systems with real users. STELLA combines user interactions and log files analyses to enable large-scale A/B experiments for academic search.