Search (346 results, page 1 of 18)

0.15537842 = product of:
  0.20717122 = sum of:
    0.049066357 = product of:
      0.14719906 = sum of:
        0.14719906 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14719906 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31429395 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14719906 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14719906 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31429395 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03707166 = 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)
    0.010905789 = product of:
      0.021811578 = sum of:
        0.021811578 = weight(_text_:web in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021811578 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

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

0.11775925 = product of:
  0.2355185 = sum of:
    0.058879625 = product of:
      0.17663887 = sum of:
        0.17663887 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17663887 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31429395 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17663887 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17663887 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31429395 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03707166 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.034857552 = product of:
  0.069715105 = sum of:
    0.049066357 = product of:
      0.14719906 = sum of:
        0.14719906 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14719906 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31429395 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.020648746 = product of:
      0.05162186 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
        0.025341455 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025341455 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

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

Date

28. 1.2020 19:35:33

0.0284735 = product of:
  0.056947 = sum of:
    0.010905789 = product of:
      0.021811578 = sum of:
        0.021811578 = weight(_text_:web in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021811578 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.046041213 = product of:
      0.076735355 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.025341455 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025341455 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.025113491 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025113491 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
12. 3.2021 18:41:28

0.018051155 = product of:
  0.03610231 = sum of:
    0.030846229 = product of:
      0.061692458 = sum of:
        0.061692458 = weight(_text_:web in 5512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061692458 = score(doc=5512,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 5512, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052560815 = product of:
      0.026280407 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 5512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=5512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 5512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5512)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Web ad effect evaluation is a challenging problem in web marketing research. Although the analysis of web ad effectiveness has achieved excellent results, there are still some deficiencies. First, there is a lack of an in-depth study of the relevance between advertisements and web content. Second, there is not a thorough analysis of the impacts of users and advertising features on user browsing behaviors. And last, the evaluation index of the web advertisement effect is not adequate. Given the above problems, we conducted our work by studying the observer's behavioral pattern based on multimodal features. First, we analyze the correlation between ads and links with different searching results and further assess the influence of relevance on the observer's attention to web ads using eye-movement features. Then we investigate the user's behavioral sequence and propose the directional frequent-browsing pattern algorithm for mining the user's most commonly used browsing patterns. Finally, we offer the novel use of "memory" as a new measure of advertising effectiveness and further build an advertising memory model with integrated multimodal features for predicting the efficacy of web ads. A large number of experiments have proved the superiority of our method.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.16-28

0.017989926 = product of:
  0.035979852 = sum of:
    0.030957155 = product of:
      0.06191431 = sum of:
        0.06191431 = weight(_text_:seiten in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06191431 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20383513 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.303747 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0050226985 = product of:
      0.025113491 = sum of:
        0.025113491 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025113491 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.

0.015868157 = product of:
  0.031736314 = sum of:
    0.026713617 = product of:
      0.053427234 = sum of:
        0.053427234 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053427234 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0050226985 = product of:
      0.025113491 = sum of:
        0.025113491 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025113491 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

Object

Web of Science

0.015577701 = product of:
  0.062310804 = sum of:
    0.062310804 = product of:
      0.311554 = sum of:
        0.311554 = weight(_text_:c3 in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.311554 = score(doc=31,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36148492 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.7509775 = idf(docFreq=6, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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."

0.01431207 = product of:
  0.02862414 = sum of:
    0.021592362 = product of:
      0.043184724 = sum of:
        0.043184724 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043184724 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007031777 = product of:
      0.035158884 = sum of:
        0.035158884 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035158884 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.013134008 = product of:
  0.052536033 = sum of:
    0.052536033 = product of:
      0.105072066 = sum of:
        0.105072066 = weight(_text_:seiten in 782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105072066 = score(doc=782,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20383513 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.51547575 = fieldWeight in 782, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der Informationswissenschaft stehen Thesauri für kontrollierte und strukturierte Vokabulare, in denen Begriffe, verstanden als geistige Einheiten, durch Bezeichnungen der natürlichen Sprache repräsentiert werden. Jedem Begriff werden eine Vorzugsbenennung, ein sog. Deskriptor, der bei der Inhaltserschließung als Schlagwort vergeben wird, und weitere bedeutungsgleiche oder -ähnliche Bezeichnungen, sog. Nicht-Deskriptoren, als Zugangsvokabular bzw. alternative Sucheinstiege zugewiesen. Dieser Art werden der Variabilität und der Mehrdeutigkeit natürlicher Sprache Rechnung getragen. Darüber hinaus werden zwischen Begriffen bzw. ihren Bezeichnungen spezifische, reziproke Relationen kenntlich gemacht (s. Abschnitt 1), die die Bedeutungsbeziehungen bzw. das "semantische Gefüge" zwischen den Begriffen aufzeigen. Diese Kernprinzipien dieser Wissensorganisationsmethode dienen sowohl auf Seiten der Inhaltserschließenden als auch auf Seiten der in einem Informationssystem Recherchierenden in unterschiedlicher Weise der Benutzerführung und Suchunterstützung. Als Grundlage für semantisches Retrieval etwa sorgen sie bei automatischer Erweiterung der Suchanfrage um die hinterlegten Nicht-Deskriptoren für eine erfolgreiche Suche weitgehend unabhängig vom konkreten Suchterm.

0.012929495 = product of:
  0.02585899 = sum of:
    0.017449262 = product of:
      0.034898523 = sum of:
        0.034898523 = weight(_text_:web in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034898523 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00840973 = product of:
      0.042048648 = sum of:
        0.042048648 = weight(_text_:28 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042048648 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.31663033 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to path-finding in the intelligent graphs, with vertices being intelligent agents. A possible implementation of this approach is described, based on logical inference in distributed frame hierarchy. Presented approach can be used for implementing distributed intelligent information systems that include automatic navigation and path generation in hypertext, which can be used, for example in distance education, as well as for organizing intelligent web catalogues with flexible ontology-based information retrieval.

Date

5. 6.2021 11:17:28

0.012389246 = product of:
  0.049556985 = sum of:
    0.049556985 = product of:
      0.123892464 = sum of:
        0.06307297 = weight(_text_:28 in 5742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06307297 = score(doc=5742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.4749455 = fieldWeight in 5742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5742)
        0.06081949 = weight(_text_:29 in 5742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081949 = score(doc=5742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5742)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18. 3.2020 18:48:28

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.3, S.29

0.012382862 = product of:
  0.04953145 = sum of:
    0.04953145 = product of:
      0.0990629 = sum of:
        0.0990629 = weight(_text_:seiten in 427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0990629 = score(doc=427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20383513 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.4859952 = fieldWeight in 427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Forderung nach mehr Digitalisierung ist en vogue. Doch was bedeutet dieser Prozess für Mensch, Gesellschaft und Zukunft? (Teil 1). In jedem Parteiprogramm wird wie selbstverständlich die Digitalisierung der Verwaltung und der Wirtschaft gefordert. Doch Digitalisierung hat verschiedene Seiten. Vorteile hinsichtlich der Prozessschnelligkeit und Verarbeitungskapazität stehen bürgerrechtlich zu begründende Nachteile entgegen. Zu diskutieren ist des Weiteren, was unter dem Humanen in seiner Essenz zu verstehen ist und wie dies durch bestimmte Formen zukünftiger Digitalisierung gefährdet sein könnte.

0.0111818565 = product of:
  0.022363713 = sum of:
    0.015268105 = product of:
      0.03053621 = sum of:
        0.03053621 = weight(_text_:web in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053621 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0070956075 = product of:
      0.035478037 = sum of:
        0.035478037 = weight(_text_:29 in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035478037 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study examines users' needs for bibliographic enhancement data (BIBED) in academic library catalogs. Qualitative data were collected through 30 academic users' activity logs and follow-up interviews. These 30 participants were recruited from a public university in the United States that has over 19,000 students enrolled and over 600 full-time faculty members. This study identified 19 types of BIBED useful for supporting the five user tasks proposed in the IFLA Library Reference Model and in seven other contexts, such as enhancing one's understanding, offering search instructions, and providing readers' advisory. Findings suggest that adopting BIBFRAME and Semantic Web technologies may enable academic library catalogs to provide BIBED to better meet user needs in various contexts.

Date

22.11.2023 18:38:29

0.010278779 = product of:
  0.041115116 = sum of:
    0.041115116 = product of:
      0.10278779 = sum of:
        0.052560814 = weight(_text_:28 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052560814 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.39578792 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
        0.050226983 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050226983 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, 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=5906)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:28

0.010278779 = product of:
  0.041115116 = sum of:
    0.041115116 = product of:
      0.10278779 = sum of:
        0.052560814 = weight(_text_:28 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052560814 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.39578792 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
        0.050226983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050226983 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 2.2020 15:06:34

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2023, H.1, S.22-25

0.009584447 = product of:
  0.019168895 = sum of:
    0.013086946 = product of:
      0.026173891 = sum of:
        0.026173891 = weight(_text_:web in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026173891 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 39, 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=39)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0060819495 = product of:
      0.030409746 = sum of:
        0.030409746 = weight(_text_:29 in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409746 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Digital cultural heritage resources are widely available on the web through the digital libraries of heritage institutions. To address the difficulties of discoverability in cultural heritage, the common practice is metadata aggregation, where centralized efforts like Europeana facilitate discoverability by collecting the resources' metadata. We present the results of the linked data aggregation task conducted within the Europeana Common Culture project, which attempted an innovative approach to aggregation based on linked data made available by cultural heritage institutions. This task ran for one year with participation of eleven organizations, involving the three member roles of the Europeana network: data providers, intermediary aggregators, and the central aggregation hub, Europeana. We report on the challenges that were faced by data providers, the standards and specifications applied, and the resulting aggregated metadata.

Date

17.11.2020 11:29:00

0.009557092 = product of:
  0.019114183 = sum of:
    0.013086946 = product of:
      0.026173891 = sum of:
        0.026173891 = weight(_text_:web in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026173891 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0060272375 = product of:
      0.030136187 = sum of:
        0.030136187 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030136187 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:53:32

0.009287147 = product of:
  0.037148587 = sum of:
    0.037148587 = product of:
      0.074297175 = sum of:
        0.074297175 = weight(_text_:seiten in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074297175 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20383513 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.3644964 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Plan S und seine potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die wissenschaftliche Publikationskultur gehören aktuell zu den international intensiv diskutierten Themen, vor allem in der Open-Access-Community, aber auch im Bibliotheksbereich. Der folgende Beitrag greift diese Debatten aus der Sicht der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft auf und beleuchtet repräsentativ wichtige Akteure sowie grundlegende Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der Open-Access-Initiative. Er skizziert ihre Entwicklung von der Ankündigung im September 2018 bis zum Erscheinen der überarbeiteten Version Ende Mai 2019 und untersucht, inwiefern die Wortmeldungen von Seiten der Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler sowie von Forschungszusammenschlüssen Eingang in die Überarbeitungen von Plan S fanden. Deren zunehmende Wichtigkeit - vor allem auch im Hinblick auf eine breitere Akzeptanz der Plan-S-Strategie bei den Forschenden - spiegelt sich in mehreren von der cOAlition S initiierten Feedback-Aktionen wider. Als eine der Folgen von Plan S ist somit eine Intensivierung der bereits seit längerem geführten Diskussionen über wissenschaftliche Publikationskulturen zu beobachten, die in zunehmendem Maße auch Bibliotheken als Ansprechpartner für Hochschulen und Wissenschaft fordern werden.

0.009253869 = product of:
  0.037015475 = sum of:
    0.037015475 = product of:
      0.07403095 = sum of:
        0.07403095 = weight(_text_:web in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07403095 = score(doc=79,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.

Theme

Semantic Web