Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01976937 = product of:
  0.09884685 = sum of:
    0.09884685 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09884685 = score(doc=4603,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.51360583 = fieldWeight in 4603, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4603)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents 2 studies concerning the role of individual differences in searching through a spatial-semantic virtual environment. In the first study, 10 subjects searched for 2 topics through a spatial user interface of a semantic space. A strong positive correlation was found between associative memory (MA-1) and search performance (r=0,855, p=0,003) but no significant correlation was found between visual memory (MV-1) and search performance. In the secon study, 12 subjects participated in a within-subject experimental design. The same spatial user interface and a simple textual user interface were used. The effects of spatial ability (VZ-2), associative memory (MA-1), and on-line experience were tested on a set of interrelated search performance scores. A statistically significant main effect of on-line experience was found, F(6,4)=6,213, p=0,049, two-tailed. In particular, on-line experience has a significant effect on the recall scores with the textual interface. Individuals experienced in on-line esearch are more likely to have a higher recall score with the textual interface than less experienced individuals. No significant main effects were found for spatial ability and associative memory. Subjects' comments suggest a potentially complex interplay between individuals' mental models and the high-dimensional semantic model. Qualitative and process-oriented studies are, therefore, called for to reveal the complex interaction between individuals' cognitive abilities, doamin knowledge, and direct manipulation skills. A recommendation is made that spatial-semantic models should be adaptable to suit individuals and tasks at various levels

0.01064276 = product of:
  0.0532138 = sum of:
    0.0532138 = product of:
      0.1064276 = sum of:
        0.1064276 = weight(_text_:22 in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1064276 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:13:11

0.01064276 = product of:
  0.0532138 = sum of:
    0.0532138 = product of:
      0.1064276 = sum of:
        0.1064276 = weight(_text_:22 in 1359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1064276 = score(doc=1359,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 1359, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:20:07

0.003743556 = product of:
  0.01871778 = sum of:
    0.01871778 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871778 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.

0.0032756117 = product of:
  0.016378058 = sum of:
    0.016378058 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016378058 = score(doc=4286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.

0.0031356532 = product of:
  0.015678266 = sum of:
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05