Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019052494 = product of:
  0.03810499 = sum of:
    0.03810499 = product of:
      0.07620998 = sum of:
        0.07620998 = weight(_text_:translating in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07620998 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36826274 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04915285 = queryNorm
            0.20694458 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.

0.009989299 = product of:
  0.019978598 = sum of:
    0.019978598 = product of:
      0.039957196 = sum of:
        0.039957196 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039957196 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1721249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04915285 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0049946494 = product of:
  0.009989299 = sum of:
    0.009989299 = product of:
      0.019978598 = sum of:
        0.019978598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019978598 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1721249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04915285 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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