Search (193 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.21 
    0.20833743 = product of:
  0.41667485 = sum of:
    0.05952498 = product of:
      0.17857493 = sum of:
        0.17857493 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17857493 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3177388 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
    0.17857493 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17857493 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3177388 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
    0.17857493 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17857493 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3177388 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Meineck, S.: Gesichter-Suchmaschine PimEyes bricht das Schweigen : Neuer Chef (2022) 0.04 
    0.03821566 = product of:
  0.22929396 = sum of:
    0.22929396 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22929396 = score(doc=418,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        1.0820342 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    PimEyes untergräbt die Anonymität von Menschen, deren Gesicht im Internet zu finden ist. Nach breiter Kritik hatte sich die polnische Suchmaschine auf die Seychellen abgesetzt. Jetzt hat PimEyes einen neuen Chef - und geht an die Öfffentlichkeit.
    Source
    https://netzpolitik.org/2022/neuer-chef-gesichter-suchmaschine-pimeyes-bricht-das-schweigen/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE
  3. Amirhosseini, M.: ¬A novel method for ranking knowledge organization systems (KOSs) based on cognition states (2022) 0.03 
    0.034583665 = product of:
  0.10375099 = sum of:
    0.0969192 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0969192 = score(doc=1105,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.47809508 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
    0.0068317903 = product of:
      0.02049537 = sum of:
        0.02049537 = weight(_text_:29 in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02049537 = score(doc=1105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this article is to delineate the process of evolution of know­ledge organization systems (KOSs) through identification of principles of unity such as internal and external unity in organizing the structure of KOSs to achieve content storage and retrieval purposes and to explain a novel method used in ranking of KOSs by proposing the principle of rank unity. Different types of KOSs which are addressed in this article include dictionaries, Roget's thesaurus, thesauri, micro, macro, and meta-thesaurus, ontologies, and lower, middle, and upper-level ontologies. This article relied on dialectic models to clarify the ideas in Kant's know­ledge theory. This is done by identifying logical relationships between categories (i.e., Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) in the creation of data, information, and know­ledge in the human mind. The Analysis has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a documentary method, as its reasoning process to propose a conceptual model for ranking KOSs. The study endeavors to explain the main elements of data, information, and know­ledge along with engineering mechanisms such as data, information, and know­ledge engineering in developing the structure of KOSs and also aims to clarify their influence on content storage and retrieval performance. KOSs have followed related principles of order to achieve an internal order, which could be examined by analyzing the principle of internal unity in know­ledge organizations. The principle of external unity leads us to the necessity of compatibility and interoperability between different types of KOSs to achieve semantic harmonization in increasing the performance of content storage and retrieval. Upon introduction of the principle of rank unity, a ranking method of KOSs utilizing cognition states as criteria could be considered to determine the position of each know­ledge organization with respect to others. The related criteria of the principle of rank unity- cognition states- are derived from Immanuel Kant's epistemology. The research results showed that KOSs, while having defined positions in cognition states, specific principles of order, related operational mechanisms, and related principles of unity in achieving their specific purposes, have benefited from the developmental experiences of previous KOSs, and further, their developmental processes owe to the experiences and methods of their previous generations.
    Date
    19.11.2023 19:07:29
  4. Dang, E.K.F.; Luk, R.W.P.; Allan, J.: ¬A retrieval model family based on the probability ranking principle for ad hoc retrieval (2022) 0.02 
    0.024480894 = product of:
  0.14688537 = sum of:
    0.14688537 = weight(_text_:ranking in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14688537 = score(doc=638,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.7245744 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Many successful retrieval models are derived based on or conform to the probability ranking principle (PRP). We present a new derivation of a document ranking function given by the probability of relevance of a document, conforming to the PRP. Our formulation yields a family of retrieval models, called probabilistic binary relevance (PBR) models, with various instantiations obtained by different probability estimations. By extensive experiments on a range of TREC collections, improvement of the PBR models over some established baselines with statistical significance is observed, especially in the large Clueweb09 Cat-B collection.
  5. Option für Metager als Standardsuchmaschine, Suchmaschine nach dem Peer-to-Peer-Prinzip (2021) 0.02 
    0.023350157 = product of:
  0.14010094 = sum of:
    0.14010094 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14010094 = score(doc=431,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.6611339 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    "Option für Metager als Standardsuchmaschine. Google wurde von der EU verordnet, auf Android-Smartphones bei Neukonfiguration eine Auswahl an Suchmaschinen anzubieten, die als Standardsuchmaschine eingerichtet werden können. Suchmaschinen konnten sich im Rahmen einer Auktion bewerben. Auch wir hatten am Auktionsverfahren teilgenommen, jedoch rein formell mit einem Gebot von null Euro. Nun wurde Google von der EU angewiesen, auf das wettbewerbsverzerrende Auktionsverfahren zu verzichten und alle angemeldeten Suchmaschinen als Option anzubieten. Auf Android ist es nun optional möglich, MetaGer als Standardsuchmaschine für den Bereich D/A/CH auszuwählen. Zwar werden nicht immer alle Suchmaschinen zur Auswahl angezeigt, aber das Zufallsprinzip sorgt immerhin dafür, dass jede Suchmaschine mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit in der Liste zu finden ist.
    Auch auf dem Volla-Phone ist es bald möglich, MetaGer als Standardsuchmaschine zu wählen. Das Volla Phone ist ein Produkt von "Hallo Welt Systeme UG" in Remscheid. Die Entwickler des Smartphones verfolgen den Ansatz, möglichst wenig von der Aufmerksamkeit des Nutzers zu beanspruchen. Technik soll nicht ablenken und sich in der Vordergrund spielen, sondern als bloßes Werkzeug im Hintergrund bleiben. Durch Möglichkeiten wie detaillierter Datenschutzeinstellungen, logfreiem VPN, quelloffener Apps aus einem alternativen App Store wird zudem Schutz der Privatsphäre ermöglicht - ganz ohne Google-Dienste. Durch die Partnerschaft mit MetaGer können die Nutzer von Volla-Phone auch im Bereich Suchmaschine Privatsphärenschutz realisieren. Mehr unter: https://suma-ev.de/mit-metager-auf-dem-volla-phone-suchen/
    YaCy: Suchmaschine nach dem Peer-to-Peer-Prinzip. YaCy ist eine dezentrale, freie Suchmaschine. Die Besonderheit: die freie Suchmaschine läuft nicht auf zentralen Servern eines einzelnen Betreibers, sondern funktioniert nach dem Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Prinzip. Dieses basiert darauf, dass die YaCy-Nutzer aufgerufene Webseiten auf ihrem Computer lokal indexieren. Jeder Nutzer "ercrawlt" sich damit einen kleinen Index, den er durch Kommunikation mit anderen YaCy-Peers teilen kann. Das Programm sorgt dafür, dass durch die kleinen dezentralen Crawler einzelner Nutzer schließlich ein globaler Gesamtindex entsteht. Je mehr Nutzer Teil dieser dezentralen Suche sind, desto größer wird der gemeinsame Index, auf den der einzelne Nutzer dann Zugriff haben kann. Seit kurzem befindet sich YaCy im Verbund unserer abgefragten Suchmaschinen. Wir sind somit auch Teil des Indexes der Suchmaschine.
  6. Wang, J.; Halffman, W.; Zhang, Y.H.: Sorting out journals : the proliferation of journal lists in China (2023) 0.02 
    0.023012474 = product of:
  0.06903742 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 1055, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1055)
    0.008462917 = product of:
      0.025388751 = sum of:
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Journal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of "bad journals" reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of "good journals" are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state-led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market-led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output-dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the "qualify" and "disqualify" binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.
    Date
    22. 9.2023 16:39:23
  7. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen (2023) 0.02 
    0.022929398 = product of:
  0.13757639 = sum of:
    0.13757639 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13757639 = score(doc=793,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.6492206 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Eine Suchmaschine (auch: Web-Suchmaschine, Universalsuchmaschine) ist ein Computersystem, das Inhalte aus dem World Wide Web (WWW) mittels Crawling erfasst und über eine Benutzerschnittstelle durchsuchbar macht, wobei die Ergebnisse in einer nach systemseitig angenommener Relevanz geordneten Darstellung aufgeführt werden. Dies bedeutet, dass Suchmaschinen im Gegensatz zu anderen Informationssystemen nicht auf einem klar abgegrenzten Datenbestand aufbauen, sondern diesen aus den verstreut vorliegenden Dokumenten des WWW zusammenstellen. Dieser Datenbestand wird über eine Benutzerschnittstelle zugänglich gemacht, die so gestaltet ist, dass die Suchmaschine von Laien problemlos genutzt werden kann. Die zu einer Suchanfrage ausgegebenen Treffer werden so sortiert, dass den Nutzenden die aus Systemsicht relevantesten Dokumente zuerst angezeigt werden. Dabei handelt es sich um komplexe Bewertungsverfahren, denen zahlreiche Annahmen über die Relevanz von Dokumenten in Bezug auf Suchanfragen zugrunde liegen.
  8. Wiggers, G.; Verberne, S.; Loon, W. van; Zwenne, G.-J.: Bibliometric-enhanced legal information retrieval : combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance (2023) 0.02 
    0.022574786 = product of:
  0.13544871 = sum of:
    0.13544871 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13544871 = score(doc=1022,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.66815823 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  9. Lobo, S.: ¬Das Ende von Google, wie wir es kannten : Bessere Treffer durch ChatGPT (2022) 0.02 
    0.022063822 = product of:
  0.13238293 = sum of:
    0.13238293 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13238293 = score(doc=852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.62471277 = fieldWeight in 852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=852)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Höchste Alarmstufe bei der weltgrößten Suchmaschine: Mit ChatGPT und künstlicher Intelligenz könnte eine neue Ära beginnen.
  10. Leisinger, C.: Sobald die Konkurrenten eine faire Chance haben, wird Google auf einen Schlag 20 Prozent seines Marktanteils verlieren (2020) 0.02 
    0.017651059 = product of:
  0.105906345 = sum of:
    0.105906345 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105906345 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.4997702 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Gabriel Weinberg macht Google und Co. mit seiner Suchmaschine DuckDuckGo immer mehr Konkurrenz. Im Gespräch erklärt er, wieso er auf den diskreten Umgang mit persönlichen Daten so viel Wert legt und warum er vehement für regulatorische Eingriffe ist.
  11. Daquino, M.: ¬A computational analysis of art historical linked data for assessing authoritativeness of attributions (2020) 0.02 
    0.017133057 = product of:
  0.102798335 = sum of:
    0.102798335 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102798335 = score(doc=5916,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.5070964 = fieldWeight in 5916, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5916)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In this article a comparative analysis of art historical linked open data are presented. The result of the analysis is a conceptual framework of Information Quality (IQ) measures designed for validating contradictory sources of attribution on the basis of a documentary, evidence-based approach. The aim is to develop an ontology-based ranking model for recommending artwork attributions and support historians and catalogers' decision-making process. The conceptual framework was evaluated by means of a user study and the evaluation of a web application leveraging the aforementioned ranking model. The results of the survey demonstrate that the findings satisfy users' expectations and are potentially applicable to other types of information in the arts and humanities field.
  12. Irle, G.: Emotionen im Information Seeking (2023) 0.02 
    0.015444675 = product of:
  0.09266805 = sum of:
    0.09266805 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09266805 = score(doc=814,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 814, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=814)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In der Informationswissenschaft wurden Emotionen im Zuge des Affective Turn als zentraler Bestandteil des Forschungsinteresses anerkannt (vgl. Kapitel D 1 Information Behaviour, Informationsverhalten). Die Relevanz der Emotionsforschung ergibt sich durch ihre Bedeutung für eine wirksame und ganzheitliche Unterstützung der Suchenden. Die vier Bereiche, in denen die Emotionsforschung bei der Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion dienen kann, können auf das Information Seeking übertragen werden: 1. Systeme erkennen Affekt beim Suchenden, 2. Systeme passen ihre Funktionalität, wie zum Beispiel die Bedienelemente der Suchmaschine, an menschlichen Affekt an, 3. Systeme drücken Affekt aus, beispielsweise mit Avataren, 4. Menschlicher oder maschineller Affekt wird modelliert.
  13. Gao, R.; Ge, Y.; Sha, C.: FAIR: Fairness-aware information retrieval evaluation (2022) 0.01 
    0.014277548 = product of:
  0.085665286 = sum of:
    0.085665286 = weight(_text_:ranking in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085665286 = score(doc=669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.42258036 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    With the emerging needs of creating fairness-aware solutions for search and recommendation systems, a daunting challenge exists of evaluating such solutions. While many of the traditional information retrieval (IR) metrics can capture the relevance, diversity, and novelty for the utility with respect to users, they are not suitable for inferring whether the presented results are fair from the perspective of responsible information exposure. On the other hand, existing fairness metrics do not account for user utility or do not measure it adequately. To address this problem, we propose a new metric called FAIR. By unifying standard IR metrics and fairness measures into an integrated metric, this metric offers a new perspective for evaluating fairness-aware ranking results. Based on this metric, we developed an effective ranking algorithm that jointly optimized user utility and fairness. The experimental results showed that our FAIR metric could highlight results with good user utility and fair information exposure. We showed how FAIR related to a set of existing utility and fairness metrics and demonstrated the effectiveness of our FAIR-based algorithm. We believe our work opens up a new direction of pursuing a metric for evaluating and implementing the FAIR systems.
  14. Haley, M.R.: ¬A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility (2020) 0.01 
    0.0121149 = product of:
  0.0726894 = sum of:
    0.0726894 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0726894 = score(doc=5676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.
  15. Kang, X.; Wu, Y.; Ren, W.: Toward action comprehension for searching : mining actionable intents in query entities (2020) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  16. Lemke, S.; Mazarakis, A.; Peters, I.: Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics (2021) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments.
  17. Goldberg, D.M.; Zaman, N.; Brahma, A.; Aloiso, M.: Are mortgage loan closing delay risks predictable? : A predictive analysis using text mining on discussion threads (2022) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Loan processors and underwriters at mortgage firms seek to gather substantial supporting documentation to properly understand and model loan risks. In doing so, loan originations become prone to closing delays, risking client dissatisfaction and consequent revenue losses. We collaborate with a large national mortgage firm to examine the extent to which these delays are predictable, using internal discussion threads to prioritize interventions for loans most at risk. Substantial work experience is required to predict delays, and we find that even highly trained employees have difficulty predicting delays by reviewing discussion threads. We develop an array of methods to predict loan delays. We apply four modern out-of-the-box sentiment analysis techniques, two dictionary-based and two rule-based, to predict delays. We contrast these approaches with domain-specific approaches, including firm-provided keyword searches and "smoke terms" derived using machine learning. Performance varies widely across sentiment approaches; while some sentiment approaches prioritize the top-ranking records well, performance quickly declines thereafter. The firm-provided keyword searches perform at the rate of random chance. We observe that the domain-specific smoke term approaches consistently outperform other approaches and offer better prediction than loan and borrower characteristics. We conclude that text mining solutions would greatly assist mortgage firms in delay prevention.
  18. Hasanain, M.; Elsayed, T.: Studying effectiveness of Web search for fact checking (2022) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  19. Ali, C.B.; Haddad, H.; Slimani, Y.: Multi-word terms selection for information retrieval (2022) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose A number of approaches and algorithms have been proposed over the years as a basis for automatic indexing. Many of these approaches suffer from precision inefficiency at low recall. The choice of indexing units has a great impact on search system effectiveness. The authors dive beyond simple terms indexing to propose a framework for multi-word terms (MWT) filtering and indexing. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors rely on ranking MWT to filter them, keeping the most effective ones for the indexing process. The proposed model is based on filtering MWT according to their ability to capture the document topic and distinguish between different documents from the same collection. The authors rely on the hypothesis that the best MWT are those that achieve the greatest association degree. The experiments are carried out with English and French languages data sets. Findings The results indicate that this approach achieved precision enhancements at low recall, and it performed better than more advanced models based on terms dependencies. Originality/value Using and testing different association measures to select MWT that best describe the documents to enhance the precision in the first retrieved documents.
  20. Urs, S.R.; Minhaj, M.: Evolution of data science and its education in iSchools : an impressionistic study using curriculum analysis (2023) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Data Science (DS) has emerged from the shadows of its parents-statistics and computer science-into an independent field since its origin nearly six decades ago. Its evolution and education have taken many sharp turns. We present an impressionistic study of the evolution of DS anchored to Kuhn's four stages of paradigm shifts. First, we construct the landscape of DS based on curriculum analysis of the 32 iSchools across the world offering graduate-level DS programs. Second, we paint the "field" as it emerges from the word frequency patterns, ranking, and clustering of course titles based on text mining. Third, we map the curriculum to the landscape of DS and project the same onto the Edison Data Science Framework (2017) and ACM Data Science Knowledge Areas (2021). Our study shows that the DS programs of iSchools align well with the field and correspond to the Knowledge Areas and skillsets. iSchool's DS curriculums exhibit a bias toward "data visualization" along with machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence; go light on statistics; slanted toward ontologies and health informatics; and surprisingly minimal thrust toward eScience/research data management, which we believe would add a distinctive iSchool flavor to the DS.

Authors

Languages

  • e 132
  • d 61

Types

  • el 34
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes