Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

0.14114611 = product of:
  0.28229222 = sum of:
    0.070573054 = product of:
      0.21171916 = sum of:
        0.21171916 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21171916 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = 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)
    0.21171916 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21171916 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = 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(2/4)

Source

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

0.117621765 = product of:
  0.23524353 = sum of:
    0.058810882 = product of:
      0.17643264 = sum of:
        0.17643264 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17643264 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17643264 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17643264 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.095640905 = product of:
  0.19128181 = sum of:
    0.1792414 = weight(_text_:engineering in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1792414 = score(doc=181,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.75083363 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
    0.012040401 = product of:
      0.024080802 = sum of:
        0.024080802 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024080802 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. A survey study is used to approach what their information needs are, how these needs change during an engineering design project and how their information-seeking behaviours have been influenced by the newly developed information technologies (ITs). Through an in-depth analysis of the survey results, the key functions have been identified for the next-generation management systems. Design/methodology/approach The paper first proposed four hypotheses on the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of young engineers. Then, a survey study was undertaken to understand their information usage in terms of the information needs and information-seeking behaviours during a complete engineering design process. Through analysing the survey results, several findings were obtained and on this basis, further comparisons were made to discuss and evaluate the hypotheses. Findings The paper has revealed that the engineering designers' information needs will evolve throughout the engineering design project; thus, they should be assisted at several different levels. Although they intend to search information and knowledge on know-what and know-how, what they really require is the know-why knowledge in order to help them complete design tasks. Also, the paper has shown how the newly developed ITs and web-based applications have influenced the engineers' information-seeking practices. Research limitations/implications The research subjects chosen in this study are engineering students in universities who, although not as experienced as engineers in companies, do go through a complete design process with the tasks similar to industrial scenarios. In addition, the focus of this study is to understand the information-seeking behaviours of a new generation of design engineers, so that the development of next-generation information and knowledge management systems can be well informed. In this sense, the results obtained do reveal some new knowledge about the information-seeking behaviours during a general design process. Practical implications This paper first identifies the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. On this basis, the varied ways to meet these needs and behaviours are discussed and elaborated. This intends to provide the key characteristics for the development of the next-generation knowledge management system for engineering design projects. Originality/value This paper proposes a novel means of exploring the future engineers' information needs and information-seeking behaviours in a collaborative working environment. It also characterises the key features and functions for the next generation of knowledge management systems for engineering design.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.043387435 = product of:
  0.17354974 = sum of:
    0.17354974 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17354974 = score(doc=5828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.72699153 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some of the fundamental activities of the software development process are related to the discipline of Requirements Engineering, whose objective is the discovery, analysis, documentation and verification of the requirements that will be part of the system. Requirements are the conditions or capabilities that software must have or perform to meet the users needs. The present study is being developed to propose a model of cooperation between Information Science and Requirements Engineering. Aims to present the analysis results on the possibilities of using the knowledge organization systems: taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies during the activities of Requirements Engineering: design, survey, elaboration, negotiation, specification, validation and requirements management. From the results obtained it was possible to identify in which stage of the Requirements Engineering process, each type of knowledge organization system could be used. We expect that this study put in evidence the need for new researchs and proposals to strengt the exchange between Information Science, as a science that has information as object of study, and the Requirements Engineering which has in the information the raw material to identify the informational needs of software users.

Footnote

Engl. Übers. des Titels: Taxonomies, ontologies and thesauri: possibilities of contribution to the process of Requirements Engineering.

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, 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=1017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.

Date

22. 7.2023 13:28:28

0.035069644 = product of:
  0.14027858 = sum of:
    0.14027858 = weight(_text_:engineering in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14027858 = score(doc=719,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.58762026 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) as networks of knowledge have the potential to inform AI operations. This paper explores natural language processing and machine learning in the context of KOS and Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) technology. The paper presents three use cases: HIVE and Historical Knowledge Networks, HIVE for Materials Science (HIVE-4-MAT), and Using HIVE to Enhance and Explore Medical Ontologies. The background section reviews AI foundations, while the use cases provide a frame of reference for discussing current progress and implications of connecting KOS to AI in digital resource collections.

0.03436075 = product of:
  0.0687215 = sum of:
    0.056681104 = weight(_text_:engineering in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056681104 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.012040401 = product of:
      0.024080802 = sum of:
        0.024080802 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024080802 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Knowledge Architectures reviews traditional approaches to managing information and explains why they need to adapt to support 21st-century information management and discovery. Exploring the rapidly changing environment in which information is being managed and accessed, the book considers how to use knowledge architectures, the basic structures and designs that underlie all of the parts of an effective information system, to best advantage. Drawing on 40 years of work with a variety of organizations, Bedford explains that failure to understand the structure behind any given system can be the difference between an effective solution and a significant and costly failure. Demonstrating that the information user environment has shifted significantly in the past 20 years, the book explains that end users now expect designs and behaviors that are much closer to the way they think, work, and act. Acknowledging how important it is that those responsible for developing an information or knowledge management system understand knowledge structures, the book goes beyond a traditional library science perspective and uses case studies to help translate the abstract and theoretical to the practical and concrete. Explaining the structures in a simple and intuitive way and providing examples that clearly illustrate the challenges faced by a range of different organizations, Knowledge Architectures is essential reading for those studying and working in library and information science, data science, systems development, database design, and search system architecture and engineering.

Content

Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together

0.030059695 = product of:
  0.12023878 = sum of:
    0.12023878 = weight(_text_:engineering in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12023878 = score(doc=507,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.5036745 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering 1203(3):032068 [DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1203/3/032068]

0.028340552 = product of:
  0.11336221 = sum of:
    0.11336221 = weight(_text_:engineering in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11336221 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.47486886 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag beschreibt a) die Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur qualitativen Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen, b) die Konstruktion eines daraus abgeleiteten Kriterienkatalogs zur Wahrnehmung der Qualität wissenschaftlicher Publikationen sowie c) der Überprüfung dieses Katalogs in qualitativen Interviews mit Wissenschaflterinnen und Wissenschaftlern aus dem Fachspektrum Chemie, Physik, Biologie, Materialwissenschaft und Engineering. Es zeigte sich, dass die Wahrnehmung von Qualität auf äußerlichen und von außen herangetragenen Faktoren, inhaltlichen / semantischen Faktoren und sprachlichen, syntaktischen sowie strukturellen Faktoren beruht.

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.020039797 = product of:
  0.08015919 = sum of:
    0.08015919 = weight(_text_:engineering in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08015919 = score(doc=79,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.335783 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies book series; vol.32

Source

Data visualization and knowledge engineering. Eds. J. Hemanth, et al

0.020039797 = product of:
  0.08015919 = sum of:
    0.08015919 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08015919 = score(doc=1105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.335783 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.019803563 = product of:
  0.07921425 = sum of:
    0.07921425 = weight(_text_:engineering in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07921425 = score(doc=423,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.33182472 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2021, sharing content is easier than ever. Our lingua franca is visual: memes, infographics, TikToks. Our references cross borders and platforms, shared and remixed a hundred different ways in minutes. Digital culture is collective by default and has us together all around the world. But as the internet reaches its "dirty 30s," what happens when pieces of digital culture that have been saved, screenshotted, and reposted for years need to retire? Let's dig into the story of one of these artifacts: The Lenna image. The Lenna image may be relatively unknown in pop culture today, but in the engineering world, it remains an icon. I first encountered the image in an undergrad class, then grad school, and then all over the sites and software I use every day as a tech worker like Github, OpenCV, Stack Overflow, and Quora. To understand where the image is today, you have to understand how it got here. So, I decided to scrape Google scholar, search, and reverse image search results to track down thousands of instances of the image across the internet (see more in the methods section).
Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.
In the 21st century, the image has remained a common sight in classrooms and on TV, including a feature on Silicon Valley in 2014. Pushback towards the use of the image also grew in the 2010s leading up to 2019, when the Losing Lena documentary was released. Forsén shares her side of the story and asks for her image to be retired: "I retired from modelling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let's commit to losing me." After the film's release, many of my female colleagues shared stories about their own encounters with the image throughout their careers. When one of the only women this well referenced, respected, and remembered in your field is known for a nude photo that was taken of her and is now used without her consent, it inevitably shapes the perception of the position of women in tech and the value of our contributions. The film called on the engineering community to stop their spread of the image and use alternatives instead. This led to efforts to remove the image from textbooks and production code and a slow, but noticeable decline in the image's use for research.

Content

"Having known Lenna for almost a decade, I have struggled to understand what the story of the image means for what tech culture is and what it is becoming. To me, the crux of the Lenna story is how little power we have over our data and how it is used and abused. This threat seems disproportionately higher for women who are often overrepresented in internet content, but underrepresented in internet company leadership and decision making. Given this reality, engineering and product decisions will continue to consciously (and unconsciously) exclude our needs and concerns. While social norms are changing towards non-consensual data collection and data exploitation, digital norms seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Advancements in machine learning algorithms and data storage capabilities are only making data misuse easier. Whether the outcome is revenge porn or targeted ads, surveillance or discriminatory AI, if we want a world where our data can retire when it's outlived its time, or when it's directly harming our lives, we must create the tools and policies that empower data subjects to have a say in what happens to their data. including allowing their data to die."

0.017712845 = product of:
  0.07085138 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research is widely recognized as necessary to tackle some of the grand challenges facing humanity. It is generally believed that interdisciplinarity is becoming increasingly prevalent among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. However, little is known about the evolution of interdisciplinarity in the Social Sciences. Also, how interdisciplinarity and its various aspects evolve over time has seldom been closely quantified and delineated. This paper answers these questions by capturing the disciplinary diversity of the knowledge base of scientific publications in nine broad Social Sciences fields over 55 years. The analysis considers diversity as a whole and its three distinct aspects, namely variety, balance, and disparity. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions are also conducted to investigate whether such change, if any, can be found among research with similar characteristics. We find that learning widely and digging deeply have become one of the norms among researchers in Social Sciences. Fields acting as knowledge exporters or independent domains maintain a relatively stable homogeneity in their knowledge base while the knowledge base of importer disciplines evolves towards greater heterogeneity. However, the increase of interdisciplinarity is substantially smaller when controlling for several author and publication related variables.

0.017712845 = product of:
  0.07085138 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Conceptual models are artifacts representing conceptualizations of particular domains. Hence, multi-domain model catalogs serve as empirical sources of knowledge and insights about specific domains, about the use of a modeling language's constructs, as well as about the patterns and anti-patterns recurrent in the models of that language crosscutting different domains. However, to support domain and language learning, model reuse, knowledge discovery for humans, and reliable automated processing and analysis by machines, these catalogs must be built following generally accepted quality requirements for scientific data management. Especially, all scientific (meta)data-including models-should be created using the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability). In this paper, we report on the construction of a FAIR model catalog for Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling research, a trending paradigm lying at the intersection of conceptual modeling and ontology engineering in which the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and OntoUML emerged among the most adopted technologies. In this initial release, the catalog includes over a hundred models, developed in a variety of contexts and domains. The paper also discusses the research implications for (ontology-driven) conceptual modeling of such a resource.

0.017712845 = product of:
  0.07085138 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=1021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 1021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In social Q&A, user-generated questions can be viewed as goal expressions shaping the responses. Several studies have identified askers' goals from questions. However, it remains unclear how questions set goals for responders. To fill this gap, this research applies goal-framing theory. Goal-frames influence responses by attracting responders' attention to different goals. Eight question cues are used to identify gain, hedonic and normative goal-frames. A total of 14,599 posts are collected. To investigate the influence of goal-frames, response networks are constructed. Results reveal that gain goal-frames attract interactions with questions, while hedonic, and normative goal-frames promote interactions among responses. Further, topic types influence the effects of goal-frames. Gain goal-frames increase interactions with questions in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) topics while hedonic and normative goal-frames attract interactions in non-STEM topics. This research leverages responders' perspectives to explain responses to questions, which are influenced by the goals set up by question cues. Beyond that, our findings enrich the empirical knowledge of social Q&A topics, revealing that the influence of questions varies across STEM and non-STEM topics because the question cues for specifying goals are different in the two topics. Our research opens new directions to investigate questions from responders' perspectives.

0.017712845 = product of:
  0.07085138 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

0.017663332 = product of:
  0.07065333 = sum of:
    0.07065333 = product of:
      0.14130665 = sum of:
        0.14130665 = weight(_text_:lehrbuch in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14130665 = score(doc=457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30775926 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.4591467 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In dem Lehrbuch wird der enge Zusammenhang zwischen dem wissenschaftlichen Schreiben in der Hochschulbibliothek sowie der Schlüsselqualifikation Informationskompetenz systematisch sowie konkret anhand von verschiedenen Schreibszenarien aufgezeigt. Für die erfolgreiche Anfertigung einer studentischen Hausarbeit, einer Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master) oder einer Dissertation bedarf es eines fundierten Wissens beim Umgang mit wissenschaftsrelevanter Information und des Beherrschens dazu notwendiger Fähigkeiten und Fertigkeiten bei der Recherche, der Auswahl, der Bewertung und der Verarbeitung von Information. Das Konzept des forschenden Lernens, wie es an den Hochschulen verfolgt wird, spielt dabei ebenso eine Rolle wie die Schwellenkonzepte der Informationskompetenz, die den dynamischen Zusammenhang der Informationspraxis mit dem Forschungsprozess in den Disziplinen betonen. Die Ressourcen und Dienstleistungen, die die Hochschulbibliothek zur Förderung und Unterstützung des wissenschaftlichen Schreibens zu Verfügung stellen, werden einbezogen.

0.014702721 = product of:
  0.058810882 = sum of:
    0.058810882 = product of:
      0.17643264 = sum of:
        0.17643264 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17643264 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."