Search (2325 results, page 1 of 117)

0.20048304 = product of:
  0.40096608 = sum of:
    0.40096608 = sum of:
      0.31878725 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 8959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.31878725 = score(doc=8959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          1.08745 = fieldWeight in 8959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8959)
      0.08217882 = weight(_text_:22 in 8959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08217882 = score(doc=8959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 8959, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2002 20:22:55

RSWK

LINUX 2.0

Subject

LINUX 2.0

0.13663402 = sum of:
  0.080279864 = product of:
    0.24083959 = sum of:
      0.24083959 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24083959 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05635415 = product of:
    0.1127083 = sum of:
      0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1127083 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.11309586 = product of:
  0.22619171 = sum of:
    0.22619171 = sum of:
      0.19879878 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879878 = score(doc=2661,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.6781442 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.11309586 = product of:
  0.22619171 = sum of:
    0.22619171 = sum of:
      0.19879878 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879878 = score(doc=4202,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.6781442 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, 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=4202)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper is the final one in a series which has tried to give an overview of so-called transformational areas of digital library technology. The aim has been to assess how much real transformation these applications can bring about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a summary of some of the legal and ethical issues associated with web 2.0 applications in libraries, associated with a brief retrospective view of some relevant literature. Findings - Although web 2.0 innovations have had a massive impact on the larger World Wide Web, the practical impact on library service delivery has been limited to date. What probably can be termed transformational in the effect of web 2.0 developments on library and information work is their effect on some underlying principles of professional practice. Research limitations/implications - The legal and ethical challenges of incorporating web 2.0 platforms into mainstream institutional service delivery need to be subject to further research, so that the risks associated with these innovations are better understood at the strategic and policy-making level. Practical implications - This paper makes some recommendations about new principles of library and information practice which will help practitioners make better sense of these innovations in their overall information environment. Social implications - The paper puts in context some of the more problematic social impacts of web 2.0 innovations, without denying the undeniable positive contribution of social networking to the sphere of human interactivity. Originality/value - This paper raises some cautionary points about web 2.0 applications without adopting a precautionary approach of total prohibition. However, none of the suggestions or analysis in this piece should be considered to constitute legal advice. If such advice is required, the reader should consult appropriate legal professionals.

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04

0.11104417 = product of:
  0.22208834 = sum of:
    0.22208834 = sum of:
      0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18784717 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

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".

Object

Web 2.0

0.11104417 = product of:
  0.22208834 = sum of:
    0.22208834 = sum of:
      0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18784717 = score(doc=3733,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3733, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3733)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3733, 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=3733)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The focus of the present research has been the development and the application to Virtual Archaeology of a Web-Based framework for Learning Objects indexing and retrieval. The paper presents the main outcomes of a experimentation carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Federico II University of Naples. Our equipe is composed by researchers both in ICT and in Humanities disciplines, in particular in the domain of Virtual Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Informatics in order to develop specific ICT methodological approaches to Virtual Archaeology. The methodological background is the progressive diffusion of Web 2.0 technologies and the attempt to analyze their impact and perspectives in the Cultural Heritage field. In particular, we approached the specific requirements of the so called Learning 2.0, and the possibility to improve the automation of modular courseware generation in Virtual Archaeology Didactics. The developed framework was called SEMANTICA, and it was applied to Virtual Archaeology Domain Ontologies in order to generate a didactic course in a semi-automated way. The main results of this test and the first students feedback on the course fruition will be presented and discussed..

Object

ARCHAEOLOGY 2.0

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.102531806 = product of:
  0.20506361 = sum of:
    0.20506361 = sum of:
      0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15027773 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
      0.05478588 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05478588 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

HTML has reinvented itself as an XML application. The working draft of the latest version, XHTML 2.0, is causing controversy due to its lack of backward compatibility and the deprecation - and in some cases disappearance - of some popular tags. But is this commotion distracting us from the big picture of what XHTML has to offer? Where is HTML going? And is it taking the Web community with it?

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105

0.10082457 = sum of:
  0.080279864 = product of:
    0.24083959 = sum of:
      0.24083959 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24083959 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020544706 = product of:
    0.04108941 = sum of:
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.08971533 = product of:
  0.17943066 = sum of:
    0.17943066 = sum of:
      0.13149302 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13149302 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
      0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047937647 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3663, 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=3663)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the era of social networking, collective intelligence, participation, collaborative creation, and borderless distribution. Every day we are bombarded with more publicity about collaborative environments, news feeds, blogs, wikis, podcasting, webcasting, folksonomies, social bookmarking, social citations, collaborative filtering, recommender systems, media sharing, massive multiplayer online games, virtual worlds, and mash-ups. This sort of anarchic environment appeals to the digital natives, but which of these so-called 'Web 2.0' technologies are going to have a real business impact? This paper addresses the impact that issues such as quality control, security, privacy and bandwidth may have on the implementation of social networking in hide-bound, large organizations.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:24:22

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=2754,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=2934,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2934, 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=2934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags generated by domain experts reaching a consensus under social influence reflect the core concepts of the tagged resource. Such tags can act as navigational cues that enable users to discover meaningful and relevant information in a Web 2.0 environment. This is particularly critical for nonexperts for understanding formal academic or scientific resources, also known as hard content. The goal of this study was to develop a novel one-bit comparison (OBC) metric and to assess in what circumstances a set of tags describing a hard-content resource is mature and representative. We compared OBC with the conventional Shannon entropy approach to determine performance when distinguishing tags generated by domain experts and nonexperts in the early and later stages under social influence. The results indicated that OBC can accurately distinguish mature tags generated by a strong expert consensus from other tags, and outperform Shannon entropy. The findings support tag-based learning, and provide insights and tools for the design of applications involving tags, such as tag recommendation and tag-based organization.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:13:22

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=3343,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

Object

Web 2.0

0.07969681 = product of:
  0.15939362 = sum of:
    0.15939362 = product of:
      0.31878725 = sum of:
        0.31878725 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31878725 = score(doc=25,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.08745 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The DIALOG Coorporation, CA, have annonced DialogSelect 2.0, a WWW based, guided search service with access to over 300 of the most popular DIALOG databases

0.07787733 = product of:
  0.15575466 = sum of:
    0.15575466 = product of:
      0.3115093 = sum of:
        0.3115093 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3115093 = score(doc=2959,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0626235 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding Web 2.0 technologies and their relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A broad narrative account of Web 2.0 developments combined with illustrations of how one library in particular reacted to these developments. Findings - It was found that all libraries need to evolve a Web 2.0 strategy to promote this aspect of their services, but that they will need to devise solutions to specific problems as part of this strategy. These include the range of Web 2.0 platforms that are on offer and the authentication and workload issues associated with this diversity. A single, unified library system-based approach to Web 2.0 is offered as a viable alternative to using disparate external services. Research limitations/implications - This paper does not resolve the difference between a multi-platform Web 2.0 strategy and the single, unified library system-based approach, although a preference for the systems-based approach is suggested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches is worthy of further research. Practical implications - At the level of practice, this viewpoint article offers two alternative Web 2.0 strategies which can be applied quite readily in everyday library work. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer a clear range of options for librarians interested in pursuing Web 2.0 services, facilitating successful service enhancement in the working library.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Web 2.0 and gaming in libraries

Object

Web 2.0

0.07689886 = product of:
  0.15379772 = sum of:
    0.15379772 = sum of:
      0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1127083 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2634, 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=2634)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report introduces the Dublin Core Microformats (DCMF) project, a new way to use the DC element set within X/HTML. The DC microformats encode explicit semantic expressions in an X/HTML webpage, by using a specific list of terms for values of the attributes "rev" and "rel" for <a> and <link> elements, and "class" and "id" of other elements. Microformats can be easily processed by user agents and software, enabling a high level of interoperability. These characteristics are crucial for the growing number of social applications allowing users to participate in the Web 2.0 environment as information creators and consumers. This report reviews the origins of microformats; illustrates the coding of DC microformats using the Dublin Core Metadata Gen tool, and a Firefox extension for extraction and visualization; and discusses the benefits of creating Web services utilizing DC microformats.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.07689886 = product of:
  0.15379772 = sum of:
    0.15379772 = sum of:
      0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1127083 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 1445, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1445)
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent approaches to KO have explored the notion of intertextuality and considered ways in which such abstract concepts derived from literary theory might form the foundation for the design of novel and rich information retrieval systems. In this paper, the notion of intertextuality is examined, and its use by knowledge organization researchers explored. Gerard Genette's work in particular has been used with some success to map out the possibilities offered by applying the concept of intertextuality to the design of information retrieval systems. The paper will examine some KO systems which reveal the traces of intertextual poetics in their design, including the FRBR model which in its mapping of intertextuality, articulates some of Genette's categories while stopping short of actualising the more subjective and interpretative categories. The paper concludes with speculation about whether and how these categories might be accommodated in a Web 2.0 interactive digital bibliosphere.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.07513887 = product of:
  0.15027773 = sum of:
    0.15027773 = product of:
      0.30055547 = sum of:
        0.30055547 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30055547 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0252576 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.07513887 = product of:
  0.15027773 = sum of:
    0.15027773 = product of:
      0.30055547 = sum of:
        0.30055547 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30055547 = score(doc=5035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0252576 = fieldWeight in 5035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.07513887 = product of:
  0.15027773 = sum of:
    0.15027773 = product of:
      0.30055547 = sum of:
        0.30055547 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30055547 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0252576 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.07425311 = product of:
  0.14850622 = sum of:
    0.14850622 = product of:
      0.29701245 = sum of:
        0.29701245 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29701245 = score(doc=2935,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0131717 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Though practitioners have seen discussions and debates surrounding the Web 2.0 concept for the last few years, we know little of Web users' heterogeneity in the usage of Web 2.0 applications, let alone the factors associated with such heterogeneity. In this article, we propose a Web user's degree of Web 2.0-ness to be measured by the weighted average of the degrees of Web 2.0-ness of the Web sites that he or she has visited. A Web site's degree of Web 2.0-ness in turn is evaluated through a series of binary criteria as to whether the site accommodates popular Web 2.0 applications. Utilizing clickstream data from an online panel coupled with expert scoring for the empirical analysis, we find that a Web user's degree of Web 2.0-ness is positively associated with his or her behavioral volume (measured by the number of page views), behavioral speed (measured by the duration of each page view), and behavioral concentration (measured by the Gini coefficient of page views the user made across Web sites). Furthermore, Web users who are younger and male are found to have a higher degree of Web 2.0-ness.

Object

Web 2.0