Search (802 results, page 1 of 41)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.26
    0.26052064 = product of:
      0.6078815 = sum of:
        0.023380058 = product of:
          0.11690029 = sum of:
            0.11690029 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = 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)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.11690029 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.11690029 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.11690029 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.11690029 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.11690029 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690029 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
      0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
    
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.26
    0.25623736 = product of:
      0.5124747 = sum of:
        0.019483384 = product of:
          0.097416915 = sum of:
            0.097416915 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = 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)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.097416915 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.097416915 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.097416915 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.097416915 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
        0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005906798 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
        0.097416915 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097416915 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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(7/14)
    
    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.
    Imprint
    Wien / Library and Information Studies : Universität
  3. Petras, V.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluation im Information Retrieval (2023) 0.02
    0.016675804 = product of:
      0.07782042 = sum of:
        0.032266766 = weight(_text_:system in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032266766 = score(doc=808,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
        0.012277049 = weight(_text_:information in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012277049 = score(doc=808,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
        0.033276606 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033276606 = score(doc=808,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 808, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=808)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Das Ziel einer Evaluation ist die Überprüfung, ob bzw. in welchem Ausmaß ein Informationssystem die an das System gestellten Anforderungen erfüllt. Informationssysteme können aus verschiedenen Perspektiven evaluiert werden. Für eine ganzheitliche Evaluation (als Synonym wird auch Evaluierung benutzt), die unterschiedliche Qualitätsaspekte betrachtet (z. B. wie gut ein System relevante Dokumente rankt, wie schnell ein System die Suche durchführt, wie die Ergebnispräsentation gestaltet ist oder wie Suchende durch das System geführt werden) und die Erfüllung mehrerer Anforderungen überprüft, empfiehlt es sich, sowohl eine perspektivische als auch methodische Triangulation (d. h. der Einsatz von mehreren Ansätzen zur Qualitätsüberprüfung) vorzunehmen. Im Information Retrieval (IR) konzentriert sich die Evaluation auf die Qualitätseinschätzung der Suchfunktion eines Information-Retrieval-Systems (IRS), wobei oft zwischen systemzentrierter und nutzerzentrierter Evaluation unterschieden wird. Dieses Kapitel setzt den Fokus auf die systemzentrierte Evaluation, während andere Kapitel dieses Handbuchs andere Evaluationsansätze diskutieren (s. Kapitel C 4 Interaktives Information Retrieval, C 7 Cross-Language Information Retrieval und D 1 Information Behavior).
  4. Vogt, T.: ¬Die Transformation des renommierten Informationsservices zbMATH zu einer Open Access-Plattform für die Mathematik steht vor dem Abschluss. (2020) 0.02
    0.015709538 = product of:
      0.109966755 = sum of:
        0.041237533 = product of:
          0.20618767 = sum of:
            0.20618767 = weight(_text_:c3 in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.20618767 = score(doc=31,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.23923214 = queryWeight, product of:
                  9.7509775 = idf(docFreq=6, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.8618728 = fieldWeight in 31, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  9.7509775 = idf(docFreq=6, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=31)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.06872922 = product of:
          0.20618767 = sum of:
            0.20618767 = weight(_text_:c3 in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.20618767 = score(doc=31,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.23923214 = queryWeight, product of:
                  9.7509775 = idf(docFreq=6, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.8618728 = fieldWeight in 31, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  9.7509775 = idf(docFreq=6, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=31)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Content
    "Mit Beginn des Jahres 2021 wird der umfassende internationale Informationsservice zbMATH in eine Open Access-Plattform überführt. Dann steht dieser bislang kostenpflichtige Dienst weltweit allen Interessierten kostenfrei zur Verfügung. Die Änderung des Geschäftsmodells ermöglicht, die meisten Informationen und Daten von zbMATH für Forschungszwecke und zur Verknüpfung mit anderen nicht-kommerziellen Diensten frei zu nutzen, siehe: https://www.mathematik.de/dmv-blog/2772-transformation-von-zbmath-zu-einer-open-access-plattform-f%C3%BCr-die-mathematik-kurz-vor-dem-abschluss."
  5. Bedford, D.: Knowledge architectures : structures and semantics (2021) 0.02
    0.015220584 = product of:
      0.053272042 = sum of:
        0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021511177 = score(doc=566,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
        0.011082135 = weight(_text_:information in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011082135 = score(doc=566,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.25731003 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
        0.014030648 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014030648 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
        0.0066480828 = product of:
          0.0132961655 = sum of:
            0.0132961655 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0132961655 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = 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)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    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
    LCSH
    Information science
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
    Subject
    Information science
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
  6. Chi, Y.; He, D.; Jeng, W.: Laypeople's source selection in online health information-seeking process (2020) 0.01
    0.014930042 = product of:
      0.052255146 = sum of:
        0.019013375 = weight(_text_:system in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019013375 = score(doc=34,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
        0.0125302095 = weight(_text_:information in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0125302095 = score(doc=34,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
        0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012401459 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
        0.008310104 = product of:
          0.016620208 = sum of:
            0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016620208 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    For laypeople, searching online health information resources can be challenging due to topic complexity and the large number of online sources with differing quality. The goal of this article is to examine, among all the available online sources, which online sources laypeople select to address their health-related information needs, and whether or how much the severity of a health condition influences their selection. Twenty-four participants were recruited individually, and each was asked (using a retrieval system called HIS) to search for information regarding a severe health condition and a mild health condition, respectively. The selected online health information sources were automatically captured by the HIS system and classified at both the website and webpage levels. Participants' selection behavior patterns were then plotted across the whole information-seeking process. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's source selection fluctuates during the health information-seeking process, and also varies by the severity of health conditions. This study reveals laypeople's real usage of different types of online health information sources, and engenders implications to the design of search engines, as well as the development of health literacy programs.
    Date
    12.11.2020 13:22:09
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1484-1499
  7. Zeynali-Tazehkandi, M.; Nowkarizi, M.: ¬ A dialectical approach to search engine evaluation (2020) 0.01
    0.0136594195 = product of:
      0.06374396 = sum of:
        0.027943838 = weight(_text_:system in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027943838 = score(doc=185,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
        0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100241685 = score(doc=185,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
        0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025775949 = score(doc=185,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Evaluation of information retrieval systems is a fundamental topic in Library and Information Science. The aim of this paper is to connect the system-oriented and the user-oriented approaches to relevant philosophical schools. By reviewing the related literature, it was found that the evaluation of information retrieval systems is successful if it benefits from both system-oriented and user-oriented approaches (composite). The system-oriented approach is rooted in Parmenides' philosophy of stability (immovable) which Plato accepts and attributes to the world of forms; the user-oriented approach is rooted in Heraclitus' flux philosophy (motion) which Plato defers and attributes to the tangible world. Thus, using Plato's theory is a comprehensive approach for recognizing the concept of relevance. The theoretical and philosophical foundations determine the type of research methods and techniques. Therefore, Plato's dialectical method is an appropriate composite method for evaluating information retrieval systems.
  8. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.01
    0.012185662 = product of:
      0.056866422 = sum of:
        0.009339468 = weight(_text_:information in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009339468 = score(doc=5843,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
        0.039216854 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039216854 = score(doc=5843,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
        0.008310104 = product of:
          0.016620208 = sum of:
            0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016620208 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.1, S.130-147
  9. Zaitseva, E.M.: Developing linguistic tools of thematic search in library information systems (2023) 0.01
    0.011208627 = product of:
      0.052306928 = sum of:
        0.019013375 = weight(_text_:system in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019013375 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
        0.011813596 = weight(_text_:information in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011813596 = score(doc=1187,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
        0.021479957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021479957 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Within the R&D program "Information support of research by scientists and specialists on the basis of RNPLS&T Open Archive - the system of scientific knowledge aggregation", the RNPLS&T analyzes the use of linguistic tools of thematic search in the modern library information systems and the prospects for their development. The author defines the key common characteristics of e-catalogs of the largest Russian libraries revealed at the first stage of the analysis. Based on the specified common characteristics and detailed comparison analysis, the author outlines and substantiates the vectors for enhancing search inter faces of e-catalogs. The focus is made on linguistic tools of thematic search in library information systems; the key vectors are suggested: use of thematic search at different search levels with the clear-cut level differentiation; use of combined functionality within thematic search system; implementation of classification search in all e-catalogs; hierarchical representation of classifications; use of the matching systems for classification information retrieval languages, and in the long term classification and verbal information retrieval languages, and various verbal information retrieval languages. The author formulates practical recommendations to improve thematic search in library information systems.
  10. Kleineberg, M.: Klassifikation (2023) 0.01
    0.0111964885 = product of:
      0.05225028 = sum of:
        0.026618723 = weight(_text_:system in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026618723 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
        0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008269517 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
        0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017362041 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.
  11. Das, S.; Naskar, D.; Roy, S.: Reorganizing educational institutional domain using faceted ontological principles (2022) 0.01
    0.010293491 = product of:
      0.048036292 = sum of:
        0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021511177 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
        0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006682779 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
        0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019842334 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this work is to find out how different library classification systems and linguistic ontologies arrange a particular domain of interest and what are the limitations for information retrieval. We use knowledge representation techniques and languages for construction of a domain specific ontology. This ontology would help not only in problem solving, but it would demonstrate the ease with which complex queries can be handled using principles of domain ontology, thereby facilitating better information retrieval. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as, Identification of the terminology, Analysis, Synthesis, Standardization and Ordering. Firstly, for purposes of conceptualization OntoUML has been used which is a well-founded and established language for Ontology driven Conceptual Modelling. Phase transformation of "the same mode" has been subsequently obtained by OWL-DL using Protégé software. The final OWL ontology contains a total of around 232 axioms. These axioms comprise 148 logical axioms, 76 declaration axioms and 43 classes. These axioms glue together classes, properties and data types as well as a constraint. Such data clustering cannot be achieved through general use of simple classification schemes. Hence it has been observed and established that domain ontology using faceted principles provide better information retrieval with enhanced precision. This ontology should be seen not only as an alternative of the existing classification system but as a Knowledge Base (KB) system which can handle complex queries well, which is the ultimate purpose of any classification system or indexing system. In this paper, we try to understand how ontology-based information retrieval systems can prove its utility as a useful tool in the field of library science with a particular focus on the education domain.
  12. Breuer, T.; Tavakolpoursaleh, N.; Schaer, P.; Hienert, D.; Schaible, J.; Castro, L.J.: Online Information Retrieval Evaluation using the STELLA Framework (2022) 0.01
    0.010115041 = product of:
      0.047203526 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
        0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100241685 = score(doc=640,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
        0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021045974 = score(doc=640,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Involving users in early phases of software development has become a common strategy as it enables developers to consider user needs from the beginning. Once a system is in production, new opportunities to observe, evaluate and learn from users emerge as more information becomes available. Gathering information from users to continuously evaluate their behavior is a common practice for commercial software, while the Cranfield paradigm remains the preferred option for Information Retrieval (IR) and recommendation systems in the academic world. Here we introduce the Infrastructures for Living Labs STELLA project which aims to create an evaluation infrastructure allowing experimental systems to run along production web-based academic search systems with real users. STELLA combines user interactions and log files analyses to enable large-scale A/B experiments for academic search.
  13. Griesbaum, J.: Informationskompetenz (2023) 0.01
    0.009531207 = product of:
      0.1334369 = sum of:
        0.1334369 = weight(_text_:relationales in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1334369 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22222634 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.05783 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.6004549 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.05783 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Informationskompetenz ist eine unabdingbare Basiskompetenz in zunehmend komplexer werdenden Informationsumwelten. Der nachfolgende Text gibt eine konzeptuelle Übersicht zum Themenfeld. Um eine Verständnisbasis zu schaffen, wird zunächst eine begriffliche Näherung vorgenommen. Anschließend werden der historische Entstehungskontext skizziert und ausgewählte Modelle angeführt, damit die Leser*innen das Thema einordnen und konzeptuelle Ansätze interpretieren können. Im nächsten Schritt wird die Bedeutsamkeit von Informationskompetenz in den unterschiedlichen Lebensphasen und -bereichen angesprochen. Schließlich wird gefragt, wie Informationskompetenz aufgebaut und gemessen werden kann. Hiermit verbunden und darauf aufsetzend wird die Forschungslage im Themenfeld angerissen. Schließlich wird ein Fazit gezogen. Der Text soll ein Verständnis dafür schaffen, dass sich Informationskompetenz in einem Spannungsverhältnis zwischen (eigener) Expertise und Vertrauen (zu Dritten) bewegt. Informationskompetenz ist dabei als ein relationales Konzept zu verstehen, das sich je nach Kontext und informationeller Zielsetzung unterschiedlich ausformt.
  14. Oliver, C: Introducing RDA : a guide to the basics after 3R (2021) 0.01
    0.009072643 = product of:
      0.063508496 = sum of:
        0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004176737 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
        0.05933176 = product of:
          0.11866352 = sum of:
            0.11866352 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11866352 = score(doc=716,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19304088 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.6147067 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.
    RSWK
    Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie
    Subject
    Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie
  15. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.01
    0.008506989 = product of:
      0.039699282 = sum of:
        0.008681185 = weight(_text_:information in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008681185 = score(doc=941,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
        0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021045974 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
        0.009972124 = product of:
          0.019944249 = sum of:
            0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019944249 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 12:00:14
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.461-475
  16. Hartel, J.: ¬The red thread of information (2020) 0.01
    0.0084408205 = product of:
      0.039390497 = sum of:
        0.018678935 = weight(_text_:information in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018678935 = score(doc=5839,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.43369597 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
        0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012401459 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
        0.008310104 = product of:
          0.016620208 = sum of:
            0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016620208 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.
    Date
    30. 4.2020 21:03:22
    Theme
    Information
  17. Huurdeman, H.C.; Kamps, J.: Designing multistage search systems to support the information seeking process (2020) 0.01
    0.008069902 = product of:
      0.03765954 = sum of:
        0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013444485 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
        0.011813596 = weight(_text_:information in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011813596 = score(doc=5882,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
        0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012401459 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.
    Source
    Understanding and improving information search [Vgl. unter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341747751_Designing_Multistage_Search_Systems_to_Support_the_Information_Seeking_Process]
  18. Xie, I.; Babu, R.; Lee, H.S.; Wang, S.; Lee, T.H.: Orientation tactics and associated factors in the digital library environment : comparison between blind and sighted users (2021) 0.01
    0.007997492 = product of:
      0.03732163 = sum of:
        0.019013375 = weight(_text_:system in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019013375 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
        0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005906798 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
        0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012401459 = score(doc=307,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This is the first study that compares types of orientation tactics that blind and sighted users applied in their initial interactions with a digital library (DL) and the associated factors. Multiple methods were employed for data collection: questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, and transaction logs. The paper identifies seven types of orientation tactics applied by the two groups of users. While sighted users focused on skimming DL content, blind users concentrated on exploring DL structure. Moreover, the authors discovered 13 types of system, user, and interaction factors that led to the use of orientation tactics. More system factors than user factors affect blind users' tactics in browsing DL structures. The findings of this study support the social model that the sight-centered design of DLs, rather than blind users' disability, prohibits them from effectively interacting with a DL. Simultaneously, the results reveal the limitation of existing interactive information retrieval models that do not take people with disabilities into consideration. DL design implications are discussed based on the identified factors.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.8, S.995-1010
  19. Bach, N.: ¬Die nächste PID-Evolution : selbstsouverän, datenschutzfreundlich, dezentral (2021) 0.01
    0.007914054 = product of:
      0.055398375 = sum of:
        0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013444485 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
        0.041953888 = product of:
          0.083907776 = sum of:
            0.083907776 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.083907776 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19304088 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.43466327 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag behandelt den zuletzt vom W3C hervorgebrachten Standard für dezentrale Identi­fikatoren (Decentralized Identifiers, kurz: DIDs) in Bezug auf den Bereich des Forschungsdatenmanagements. Es wird dargelegt, dass die aktuell im wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesen häufig verwendeten persistenten Identifikatorensysteme (Persistent Identifiers, PIDs) wie Handle, DOI, ORCID und ROR aufgrund ihrer Zentralisierung fundamentale Probleme hinsichtlich der Daten­sicherheit, dem Datenschutz und bei der Sicherstellung der Datenintegrität aufweisen. Dem werden als mögliche Lösung das System der DIDs gegenübergestellt: eine neuartige Form von weltweit eindeutigen Identifikatoren, die durch jedes Individuum oder jede Organisation selbst generiert und auf jeder als vertrauenswürdig erachteten Plattform betrieben werden können. Blockchains oder andere Distributed-Legder-Technologien können dabei als vertrauenswürdige Datenregister fungieren, aber auch direkte Peer-to-Peer-Verbindungen, auf bestehende Internetprotokolle aufsetzende Methoden oder statische DIDs sind möglich. Neben dem Schema wird die technische Spezifikation im Sinne von Datenmodell und die Anwendung von DIDs erläutert sowie im Vergleich die Unterschiede zu zentralisierten PID-Systemen herausgestellt. Zuletzt wird der Zusammenhang mit dem zugrundeliegenden neuen Paradigma einer dezentralen Identität, der Self-Sovereign Identity, hergestellt. SSI repräsentiert ein gesamtes Ökosystem, in dem Entitäten ein kryptografisch gesichertes Vertrauensnetzwerk auf der Basis von DIDs und digitalen Identitätsnachweisen bilden, um dezentral manipulationsgesichert und datenschutzgerecht identitätsbezogene Daten auszutauschen. Zum Schluss der Abhandlung stellt der Autor fünf zuvor herausgearbeitete Anforderungen in Bezug auf eine zeitgemäße Umsetzung von persistenten Identifikatoren vor.
  20. Womser-Hacker, C.: Informationswissenschaftliche Perspektiven des Information Retrieval (2023) 0.01
    0.007904913 = product of:
      0.036889594 = sum of:
        0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013444485 = score(doc=798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
        0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005906798 = score(doc=798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
        0.017538311 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017538311 = score(doc=798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Mit Information Retrieval (IR) sind in Forschung und Entwicklung in unterschiedlicher Breite und aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mehrere Disziplinen befasst. Die verschiedenen Ausrichtungen sind wichtig, da nur in ihrer Verknüpfung eine Gesamtschau des IR vermittelt werden kann. Die Informatik verfolgt einen stärker systemgetriebenen, technologischen Ansatz des IR und stellt Algorithmen und Implementationen in den Vordergrund, während für die Informationswissenschaft die Benutzer*innen in ihren vielschichtigen Kontexten den Schwerpunkt bilden. Deren Eigenschaften (fachlicher Hintergrund, Domänenzugehörigkeit, Expertise etc.) und Zielsetzungen, die durch das IR verfolgt werden, spielen im Interaktionsprozess zwischen Mensch und System eine zentrale Rolle. Auch wird intensiv der Frage nachgegangen, wie sich Benutzer*innen in diesen Prozessen verhalten und aus welchen Gründen sie verschiedene Systeme in Anspruch nehmen. Da ein Großteil des heutigen Wissens nach wie vor in Texten repräsentiert ist, ist eine weitere Disziplin - nämlich die Computerlinguistik/Sprachtechnologie für das IR von Bedeutung. Zusätzlich kommen aber auch visuelle und auditive Wissensobjekte immer stärker zum Tragen und werden aufgrund ihrer anwachsenden Menge immer wichtiger für das IR. Ein neues Fachgebiet ist die Data Science, die auf altbekannten Konzepten aus Statistik und Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung aufsetzt, auf den Daten operiert und auch traditionelles IR-Wissen für die Zusammenführung von strukturierten Fakten und unstrukturierten Texten nutzt. Hier soll die informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive im Vordergrund stehen.

Languages

  • e 671
  • d 124
  • pt 4
  • m 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 754
  • el 84
  • m 23
  • p 7
  • s 6
  • x 2
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications