Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07577636 = product of:
  0.15155272 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.045877226 = weight(_text_:wide in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045877226 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.060965855 = weight(_text_:web in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060965855 = score(doc=4972,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.010184665 = weight(_text_:information in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010184665 = score(doc=4972,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4972, 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=4972)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.163-173

0.0331946 = product of:
  0.08851893 = sum of:
    0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048334967 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.014258532 = weight(_text_:information in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014258532 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5844, 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=5844)
    0.025925435 = product of:
      0.05185087 = sum of:
        0.05185087 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05185087 = score(doc=5844,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types

0.030333322 = product of:
  0.08088886 = sum of:
    0.05505267 = weight(_text_:wide in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05505267 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.008641975 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008641975 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.017194213 = product of:
      0.034388427 = sum of:
        0.034388427 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034388427 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.029661898 = product of:
  0.11864759 = sum of:
    0.017640358 = weight(_text_:information in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640358 = score(doc=4888,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.10100723 = sum of:
      0.06048008 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06048008 = score(doc=4888,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.04052715 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04052715 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper centres on the tools for the management of new digital documents, which are not only textual, but also visual-video, audio or multimedia in the full sense. Among the aims is to demonstrate that operating within the terms of generic Information Retrieval through textual language only is limiting, and it is instead necessary to consider ampler criteria, such as those of MultiMedia Information Retrieval, according to which, every type of digital document can be analyzed and searched by the proper elements of language for its proper nature. MMIR is presented as the organic complex of the systems of Text Retrieval, Visual Retrieval, Video Retrieval, and Audio Retrieval, each of which has an approach to information management that handles the concrete textual, visual, audio, or video content of the documents directly, here defined as content-based. In conclusion, the limits of this content-based objective access to documents is underlined. The discrepancy known as the semantic gap is that which occurs between semantic-interpretive access and content-based access. Finally, the integration of these conceptions is explained, gathering and composing the merits and the advantages of each of the approaches and of the systems to access to information.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval. In: Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.027129866 = product of:
  0.108519465 = sum of:
    0.08285994 = weight(_text_:world in 2977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08285994 = score(doc=2977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 2977, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2977)
    0.025659526 = product of:
      0.05131905 = sum of:
        0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131905 = score(doc=2977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2977, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper argues that the realisation of the electronic hypermedia of the future depends on integrating the technology of free text retrieval with the classification-based discipline of content analysis

0.022896644 = product of:
  0.091586575 = sum of:
    0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011522634 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.08006394 = sum of:
      0.0342127 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0342127 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.045851234 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045851234 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.020594401 = product of:
  0.054918405 = sum of:
    0.029867046 = weight(_text_:web in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029867046 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
    0.012221599 = weight(_text_:information in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012221599 = score(doc=4444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
    0.012829763 = product of:
      0.025659526 = sum of:
        0.025659526 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025659526 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The paper establishes a taxonomy of image-text relationships that reflects the ways that images and text interact. It is applicable to all subject areas and document types. The taxonomy was developed to answer the research question: how does an illustration relate to the text with which it is associated, or, what are the functions of illustration? Developed in a two-stage process - first, analysis of relevant research in children's literature, dictionary development, education, journalism, and library and information design and, second, subsequent application of the first version of the taxonomy to 954 image-text pairs in 45 Web pages (pages with educational content for children, online newspapers, and retail business pages) - the taxonomy identifies 49 relationships and groups them in three categories according to the closeness of the conceptual relationship between image and text. The paper uses qualitative content analysis to illustrate use of the taxonomy to analyze four image-text pairs in government publications and discusses the implications of the research for information retrieval and document design.

0.019710865 = product of:
  0.052562308 = sum of:
    0.020714985 = weight(_text_:world in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020714985 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.12740089 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.027526336 = weight(_text_:wide in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027526336 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.0043209875 = weight(_text_:information in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043209875 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

0.018263076 = product of:
  0.0730523 = sum of:
    0.06585065 = weight(_text_:web in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06585065 = score(doc=1863,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1863, 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=1863)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This research explores the use of genre as a document descriptor in order to improve the effectiveness of Web searching. A major issue to be resolved is the identification of what document categories should be used as genres. As genre is a kind of folk typology, document categories must enjoy widespread recognition by their intended user groups in order to qualify as genres. Three user studies were conducted to develop a genre palette and show that it is recognizable to users. (Palette is a term used to denote a classification, attributable to Karlgren, Bretan, Dewe, Hallberg, and Wolkert, 1998.) To simplify the users' classification task, it was decided to focus on Web pages from the edu domain. The first study was a survey of user terminology for Web pages. Three participants separated 100 Web page printouts into stacks according to genre, assigning names and definitions to each genre. The second study aimed to refine the resulting set of 48 (often conceptually and lexically similar) genre names and definitions into a smaller palette of user-preferred terminology. Ten participants classified the same 100 Web pages. A set of five principles for creating a genre palette from individuals' sortings was developed, and the list of 48 was trimmed to 18 genres. The third study aimed to show that users would agree on the genres of Web pages when choosing from the genre palette. In an online experiment in which 257 participants categorized a new set of 55 pages using the 18 genres, on average, over 70% agreed on the genre of each page. Suggestions for improving the genre palette and future directions for the work are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1053-1072

0.01771992 = product of:
  0.07087968 = sum of:
    0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048334967 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
    0.02254472 = weight(_text_:information in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02254472 = score(doc=946,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1092-1103

0.017083593 = product of:
  0.06833437 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
    0.033809394 = product of:
      0.06761879 = sum of:
        0.06761879 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06761879 = score(doc=837,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 837, 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=837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide a better-informed view of the extent of the semantic gap in image retrieval, and the limited potential for bridging it offered by current semantic image retrieval techniques. Design/methodology/approach - Within an ongoing project, a broad spectrum of operational image retrieval activity has been surveyed, and, from a number of collaborating institutions, a test collection assembled which comprises user requests, the images selected in response to those requests, and their associated metadata. This has provided the evidence base upon which to make informed observations on the efficacy of cutting-edge automatic annotation techniques which seek to integrate the text-based and content-based image retrieval paradigms. Findings - Evidence from the real-world practice of image retrieval highlights the existence of a generic-specific continuum of object identification, and the incidence of temporal, spatial, significance and abstract concept facets, manifest in textual indexing and real-query scenarios but often having no directly visible presence in an image. These factors combine to limit the functionality of current semantic image retrieval techniques, which interpret only visible features at the generic extremity of the generic-specific continuum. Research limitations/implications - The project is concerned with the traditional image retrieval environment in which retrieval transactions are conducted on still images which form part of managed collections. The possibilities offered by ontological support for adding functionality to automatic annotation techniques are considered. Originality/value - The paper offers fresh insights into the challenge of migrating content-based image retrieval from the laboratory to the operational environment, informed by newly-assembled, comprehensive, live data.

0.0138990525 = product of:
  0.05559621 = sum of:
    0.029936682 = weight(_text_:information in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029936682 = score(doc=1329,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
    0.025659526 = product of:
      0.05131905 = sum of:
        0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131905 = score(doc=1329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg

0.013323508 = product of:
  0.053294033 = sum of:
    0.04310937 = weight(_text_:web in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04310937 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
    0.010184665 = weight(_text_:information in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010184665 = score(doc=2669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2669, 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=2669)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on applying sentiment analysis to resources from online art collections, by exploiting, as information source, tags intended as textual traces that visitors leave to comment artworks on social platforms. We present a framework where methods and tools from a set of disciplines, ranging from Semantic and Social Web to Natural Language Processing, provide us the building blocks for creating a semantic social space to organize artworks according to an ontology of emotions. The ontology is inspired by the Plutchik's circumplex model, a well-founded psychological model of human emotions. Users can be involved in the creation of the emotional space, through a graphical interactive interface. The development of such semantic space enables new ways of accessing and exploring art collections. The affective categorization model and the emotion detection output are encoded into W3C ontology languages. This gives us the twofold advantage to enable tractable reasoning on detected emotions and related artworks, and to foster the interoperability and integration of tools developed in the Semantic Web and Linked Data community. The proposal has been evaluated against a real-word case study, a dataset of tagged multimedia artworks from the ArsMeteo Italian online collection, and validated through a user study.

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.139-162

0.013269718 = product of:
  0.05307887 = sum of:
    0.045877226 = weight(_text_:wide in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045877226 = score(doc=2667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=2667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2667, 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=2667)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis on Twitter has attracted much attention recently due to its wide applications in both, commercial and public sectors. In this paper we present SentiCircles, a lexicon-based approach for sentiment analysis on Twitter. Different from typical lexicon-based approaches, which offer a fixed and static prior sentiment polarities of words regardless of their context, SentiCircles takes into account the co-occurrence patterns of words in different contexts in tweets to capture their semantics and update their pre-assigned strength and polarity in sentiment lexicons accordingly. Our approach allows for the detection of sentiment at both entity-level and tweet-level. We evaluate our proposed approach on three Twitter datasets using three different sentiment lexicons to derive word prior sentiments. Results show that our approach significantly outperforms the baselines in accuracy and F-measure for entity-level subjectivity (neutral vs. polar) and polarity (positive vs. negative) detections. For tweet-level sentiment detection, our approach performs better than the state-of-the-art SentiStrength by 4-5% in accuracy in two datasets, but falls marginally behind by 1% in F-measure in the third dataset.

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.5-19

0.012525181 = product of:
  0.050100725 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.029936114 = product of:
      0.05987223 = sum of:
        0.05987223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05987223 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

0.012256589 = product of:
  0.049026355 = sum of:
    0.02036933 = weight(_text_:information in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036933 = score(doc=5835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
    0.028657023 = product of:
      0.057314046 = sum of:
        0.057314046 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057314046 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u, L. Kajberg

0.011706989 = product of:
  0.046827957 = sum of:
    0.02116843 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02116843 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, 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=1958)
    0.025659526 = product of:
      0.05131905 = sum of:
        0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131905 = score(doc=1958,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392

0.0114661325 = product of:
  0.04586453 = sum of:
    0.024696501 = weight(_text_:information in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024696501 = score(doc=5828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.021168029 = product of:
      0.042336058 = sum of:
        0.042336058 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042336058 = score(doc=5828,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Issues concerning the formulation and application of a model of how humans value information are examined. Formulation of a value function is based on research from modelling, value assessment, human information seeking behavior, and human decision making. The proposed function is incorporated into a computer-based fiction retrieval system and evaluated using data from nine searches. Evaluation is based on the ability of an individual's value function to discriminate among novels selected, rejected, and not considered. The results are discussed in terms of both formulation and utilization of a value function as well as the implications for extending the proposed formulation to other information seeking environments

Source

Information processing and management. 20(1984), S.583-601

0.010735869 = product of:
  0.042943478 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
    0.025659526 = product of:
      0.05131905 = sum of:
        0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131905 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

2nd Symposium on Empirical Foundations of Information and Software Science, 3.-5.10.84, Atlanta

0.010431656 = product of:
  0.041726623 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5640, 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=5640)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.