Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

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.

0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.7, S.29

0.0022567778 = product of:
  0.013540667 = sum of:
    0.013540667 = product of:
      0.040622 = sum of:
        0.040622 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040622 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 486, 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=486)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2022 14:01:14

0.0019926056 = product of:
  0.011955633 = sum of:
    0.011955633 = product of:
      0.035866898 = sum of:
        0.035866898 = weight(_text_:29 in 5866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866898 = score(doc=5866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5866)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

11. 7.2020 18:50:29

0.0014232898 = product of:
  0.008539738 = sum of:
    0.008539738 = product of:
      0.025619213 = sum of:
        0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619213 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that the age-related digital divide prevents older adults from enhancing their quality of life. To bridge this gap and promote active aging, this study explores the interplay between social networks and older adults' use of information and communication technology (ICT). Using an action-oriented field research approach, we offered technical help (29 help sessions) to older adult participants recruited from western China. Then, we conducted content analysis to examine the obtained video, audio, and text data. Our results show that, first, different types of social networks significantly influence older adults' ICT use in terms of digital skills, engagement, and attitudes; however, these effects vary from person to person. In particular, our results highlight the crucial role of a stable and long-term supportive social network in learning and mastering ICT for older residents. Second, technical help facilitates the building and reinforcing of such a social network for the participants. Our study has strong implications in that policymakers can foster the digital inclusion of older people through supportive social networks.