Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027005369 = product of:
  0.12602505 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article describes multiple experiments in text mining at Northern Illinois University that were undertaken to improve the efficiency and accuracy of cataloging. It focuses narrowly on subject analysis of dime novels, a format of inexpensive fiction that was popular in the United States between 1860 and 1915. NIU holds more than 55,000 dime novels in its collections, which it is in the process of comprehensively digitizing. Classification, keyword extraction, named-entity recognition, clustering, and topic modeling are discussed as means of assigning subject headings to improve their discoverability by researchers and to increase the productivity of digitization workflows.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.5, S.315-336

0.017571535 = product of:
  0.082000494 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
    0.034896467 = product of:
      0.069792934 = sum of:
        0.069792934 = weight(_text_:texts in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069792934 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42399842 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Catalogers' judgment has been frequently mentioned, but rarely has been researched in formal studies. The purpose of this article is to investigate catalogers' judgment through an exploration of the texts collected in the database of Library and Information Science Source. Verbs, adjectives, and nouns intimately associated with catalogers' judgment were extracted, analyzed, and grouped into 16 categories, which lead to 5 conceptual descriptions. The results of this study provide cataloging professionals with an overall picture on aspects of catalogers' judgment, which may help library school students and graduates and novice catalogers to become independent and confident decision makers relating to cataloging work.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.4, S.298-316

0.014717946 = product of:
  0.103025615 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
    0.06907709 = product of:
      0.13815418 = sum of:
        0.13815418 = weight(_text_:texts in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13815418 = score(doc=856,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.8392992 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The subject analysis of narrative texts of fiction is complex; the methodological model of identification of concepts as elaborated for scientific texts is not applicable to fiction. It is proposed here that theoretical and methodological use of the Generative Trajectory of Meaning postulated by Greimas may contribute to the identification of aboutness in narrative texts of fiction.

0.011756477 = product of:
  0.054863557 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.

0.009228775 = product of:
  0.06460142 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
    0.034896467 = product of:
      0.069792934 = sum of:
        0.069792934 = weight(_text_:texts in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069792934 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42399842 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5139)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5139)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.8, S.553-582

0.006423804 = product of:
  0.044966627 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This study demonstrates an improved conceptual foundation to support well-structured analysis of image topicality. First we present a conceptual framework for analyzing image topicality, explicating the layers, the perspectives, and the topical relevance relationships involved in modeling the topicality of art images. We adapt a generic relevance typology to image analysis by extending it with definitions and relationships specific to the visual art domain and integrating it with schemes of image-text relationships that are important for image subject indexing. We then apply the adapted typology to analyze the topical relevance relationships between 11 art images and 768 image tags assigned by art historians and librarians. The original contribution of our work is the topical structure analysis of image tags that allows the viewer to more easily grasp the content, context, and meaning of an image and quickly tune into aspects of interest; it could also guide both the indexer and the searcher to specify image tags/descriptors in a more systematic and precise manner and thus improve the match between the two parties. An additional contribution is systematically examining and integrating the variety of image-text relationships from a relevance perspective. The paper concludes with implications for relational indexing and social tagging.

0.0054560127 = product of:
  0.07638417 = sum of:
    0.07638417 = weight(_text_:subject in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07638417 = score(doc=299,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7112912 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.

0.0047444506 = product of:
  0.066422306 = sum of:
    0.066422306 = weight(_text_:subject in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066422306 = score(doc=3418,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.

0.004200041 = product of:
  0.058800567 = sum of:
    0.058800567 = weight(_text_:subject in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058800567 = score(doc=3003,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article describes the difference between cataloging images and cataloging books, the obstacles to including subject data in image cataloging records and how these obstacles can be overcome to make image collections more accessible. I call for participants to help create a subject authority reference resource for non-Western art. This article is an expanded and revised version of a presentation for the 2016 Joint ARLIS/VRA conference in Seattle.

0.0040097926 = product of:
  0.056137092 = sum of:
    0.056137092 = weight(_text_:subject in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056137092 = score(doc=3182,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5227499 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.

0.0037123463 = product of:
  0.051972847 = sum of:
    0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051972847 = score(doc=872,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It is widely accepted that subject indexing of an image is based on a two-dimensional approach. The first is the ofness and the second focuses on aboutness of the image. Assigning a suitable set of subject tags based on these two groups depends, to a great deal, on users' perception of the image. This study aims at analyzing users' perception of aboutness and ofness of images. 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in two phases. In the first phase a collection of 10 widely known photographs were given to the interviewees and they were asked to assign subject tags (as many as they wanted) to each image. In the second phase some facts regarding each image were given to him / her to assign further tags (again as many as they wanted) or even modify their previous tags. The results show that the interviewees do focus both on ofness and aboutness in subject tagging; but it seems that they emphasize more on aboutness in describing images. On the other hand, as soon as the interviewees were able to distinguish the iconographical ofness, they could speak of iconographical and iconological aboutness. The results also show that subject indexers must focus on the iconographical level, especially regarding those tags which represent the ofness at this level.

0.0024248946 = product of:
  0.033948522 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.001780432 = product of:
  0.024926046 = sum of:
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.

0.001696343 = product of:
  0.0237488 = sum of:
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Creative professionals in advertising, marketing, design and journalism search for images to visually represent a concept for their project. The main purpose of this paper is to present search facets derived from an analysis of documents known as briefs, which are widely used in creative industries as requirement documents describing information needs. The briefs specify the type of image required, such as the content and context of use for the image and represent the topic from which the searcher builds an image query. We take three main sources-user image search behaviour, briefs, and image search engine search facets-to examine the search facets for image searching in order to examine the following research question-are search facet schemes for image search engines sufficient for user needs, or is revision needed? We found that there are three main classes of user search facet, which include business, contextual and image related information. The key argument in the paper is that the facet "keyword/tag" is ambiguous and does not support user needs for more generic descriptions to broaden search or specific descriptions to narrow their search-we suggest that a more detailed search facet scheme would be appropriate.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3584)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Emotional meaning is critical for users to retrieve relevant images. However, because emotional meanings are subject to the individual viewer's interpretation, they are considered difficult to implement when designing image retrieval systems. With the intent of making an image's emotional messages more readily accessible, this study aims to test a new approach designed to enhance the accessibility of emotional meanings during the image search process. This approach utilizes image searchers' emotional reactions, which are quantitatively measured. Broadly used quantitative measurements for emotional reactions, Semantic Differential (SD) and Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), were selected as tools for gathering users' reactions. Emotional representations obtained from these two tools were compared with three image perception tasks: searching, describing, and sorting. A survey questionnaire with a set of 12 images was administered to 58 participants, which were tagged with basic emotions. Results demonstrated that the SAM represents basic emotions on 2-dimensional plots (pleasure and arousal dimensions), and this representation consistently corresponded to the three image perception tasks. This study provided experimental evidence that quantitative users' reactions can be a useful complementary element of current image retrieval/indexing systems. Integrating users' reactions obtained from the SAM into image browsing systems would reduce the efforts of human indexers as well as improve the effectiveness of image retrieval systems.

0.0010273255 = product of:
  0.014382556 = sum of:
    0.014382556 = product of:
      0.028765112 = sum of:
        0.028765112 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028765112 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

8.7171455E-4 = product of:
  0.0122040035 = sum of:
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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