Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Mayr, P."
  1. Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Crosskonkordanzen (2007) 0.03 
    0.03186875 = product of:
  0.14872082 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 162, 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=162)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 162, 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=162)
    0.11275284 = weight(_text_:kongress in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11275284 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19442701 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.57992375 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag stellt Einsatzmöglichkeiten und spezifische Problembereiche von Crosskonkordanzen (CK) im Projekt "Kompetenznetzwerk Modellbildung und Heterogenitätsbehand lung" (KoMoHe) so wie das Netz der bis dato entstandenen Terminologie-Überstiege vor. Die am IZ entstandenen CK sollen künftig über einen Terminologie-Service als Web Service genutzt werden, dieser wird im Beitrag exemplarisch vorgestellt. Des Weiteren wird ein Testszenario samt Evaluationsdesign beschrieben über das der Mehrwert von Crosskonkordanzen empirisch untersucht werden kann.
    Content
    Auch in: Lokal-Global: Vernetzung wissenschaftlicher Infrastrukturen; 12. Kongress der IuK-Initiative der Wissenschaftlichen Fachgesellschaft in Deutschland, Tagungsberichte, GESIS-IZ Sozialwissenschaft, Bonn, S.149-166.
    Source
    http://www.gesis.org/Information/Forschungsuebersichten/Tagungsberichte/Vernetzung/Mayr-Walter.pdf
  2. Mayr, P.: Google Scholar als akademische Suchmaschine (2009) 0.02 
    0.017363796 = product of:
  0.060773283 = sum of:
    0.019725623 = weight(_text_:web in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019725623 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.022074163 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022074163 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18144052 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.0069903214 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069903214 = score(doc=3023,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.0119831795 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0119831795 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Neben den klassischen Informationsanbietern Bibliothek, Fachinformation und den Verlagen sind Internetsuchmaschinen inzwischen fester Bestandteil bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Information. Scirus (Elsevier, 2004) und Google Scholar sind zwei Beispiele für Suchdienste kommerzieller Suchmaschinen-Unternehmen, die eine Einschränkung auf den wissenschaftlichen Dokumentenraum anstreben und nennenswerte Dokumentzahlen in allen Disziplinen generieren. Der Vergleich der Treffermengen für beliebige Suchthemen zeigt, dass die Wahl des Suchsystems, des Dokumentenpools und der Dokumenttypen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Relevanz und damit letztlich auch die Akzeptanz des Suchergebnisses hat. Tabelle 1 verdeutlicht die Mengenunterschiede am Beispiel der Trefferergebnisse für die Suchbegriffe "search engines" bzw. "Suchmaschinen" in der allgemeinen Internetsuchmaschine Google, der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine Google Scholar (GS) und der größten fachübergreifenden bibliographischen Literaturdatenbank Web of Science (WoS). Der Anteil der Dokumente, die in diesem Fall eindeutig der Wissenschaft zuzuordnen sind (siehe GS und insbesondere WoS in Tabelle 1), liegt gegenüber der allgemeinen Websuche lediglich im Promille-Bereich. Dieses Beispiel veranschaulicht, dass es ausgesprochen problematisch sein kann, fachwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen ausschließlich mit Internetsuchmaschinen zu recherchieren. Der Anteil der fachwissenschaftlich relevanten Dokumente in diesem Trefferpool ist i. d. R. sehr gering. Damit sinkt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, wissenschaftlich relevantes (z. B. einen Zeitschriftenaufsatz) auf den ersten Trefferseiten zu finden, deutlich ab.
    Die drei oben genannten Suchsysteme (Google, GS und WoS) unterscheiden sich in mehrerlei Hinsicht fundamental und eignen sich daher gut, um in die Grundthematik dieses Artikels einzuleiten. Die obigen Suchsysteme erschließen zunächst unterschiedliche Suchräume, und dies auf sehr spezifische Weise. Während Google frei zugängliche und über Hyperlink adressierbare Dokumente im Internet erfasst, gehen die beiden akademischen Suchsysteme deutlich selektiver bei der Inhaltserschließung vor. Google Scholar erfasst neben frei zugänglichen elektronischen Publikationstypen im Internet hauptsächlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente, die direkt von den akademischen Verlagen bezogen werden. Das WoS, das auf den unterschiedlichen bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindizes des ehemaligen "Institute for Scientific Information" (ISI) basiert, selektiert gegenüber den rein automatischen brute-force-Ansätzen der Internetsuchmaschine über einen qualitativen Ansatz. In den Datenbanken des WoS werden ausschließlich internationale Fachzeitschriften erfasst, die ein kontrolliertes Peer-Review durchlaufen. Insgesamt werden ca. 12.000 Zeitschriften ausgewertet und über die Datenbank verfügbar gemacht. Wie bereits erwähnt, spielt neben der Abgrenzung der Suchräume und Dokumenttypen die Zugänglichkeit und Relevanz der Dokumente eine entscheidende Bedeutung für den Benutzer. Die neueren technologischen Entwicklungen des Web Information Retrieval (IR), wie sie Google oder GS implementieren, werten insbesondere frei zugängliche Dokumente mit ihrer gesamten Text- und Linkinformation automatisch aus. Diese Verfahren sind vor allem deshalb erfolgreich, weil sie Ergebnislisten nach Relevanz gerankt darstellen, einfach und schnell zu recherchieren sind und direkt auf die Volltexte verweisen. Die qualitativen Verfahren der traditionellen Informationsanbieter (z. B. WoS) hingegen zeigen genau bei diesen Punkten (Ranking, Einfachheit und Volltextzugriff) Schwächen, überzeugen aber vor allem durch ihre Stringenz, in diesem Fall die selektive Aufnahme von qualitätsgeprüften Dokumenten in das System und die inhaltliche Erschließung der Dokumente (siehe dazu Mayr und Petras, 2008).
  3. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.: Reducing semantic complexity in distributed digital libraries : Treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking (2008) 0.01 
    0.010365837 = product of:
  0.048373908 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1909,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1909, 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=1909)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".
    Theme
    Semantic Web
    Information Gateway
  4. Mayr, P.; Scharnhorst, A.: Scientometrics and information retrieval - weak-links revitalized (2015) 0.01 
    0.009709007 = product of:
  0.06796305 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
    0.050840326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050840326 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Editorial zu einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  5. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01 
    0.008597089 = product of:
  0.06017962 = sum of:
    0.055134792 = weight(_text_:web in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055134792 = score(doc=3752,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3752, 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=3752)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.
    Content
    Bezug zu: Bergman, M.K.: The Deep Web: surfacing hidden value. In: Journal of Electronic Publishing. 7(2001) no.1, S.xxx-xxx. [Vgl. unter: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html].
  6. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01 
    0.008192899 = product of:
  0.057350285 = sum of:
    0.052305456 = weight(_text_:web in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052305456 = score(doc=2580,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2580, 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=2580)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.
  7. Mutschke, P.; Mayr, P.: Science models for search : a study on combining scholarly information retrieval and scientometrics (2015) 0.01 
    0.008090839 = product of:
  0.05663587 = sum of:
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1695, 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=1695)
    0.042366937 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042366937 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1695)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  8. Mayr, P.: ¬Die virtuelle Steinsuppe : kooperatives Verwalten von elektronischen Ressourcen mit Digilink (2007) 0.01 
    0.007937639 = product of:
  0.055563472 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=567,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Die Bibliothek als Leuchtturm im Datenmeer? Informationskompetenz wird als eine der Stärken von Bibliothekaren gesehen. Natürlich erwarten unsere Benutzer diese Kompetenz nicht nur im Bereich der gedruckten Literatur, sondern auch bei elektronischen Informationsquellen.
    Source
    Wa(h)re Information: 29. Österreichischer Bibliothekartag Bregenz, 19.-23.9.2006. Hrsg.: Harald Weigel
    Theme
    Information Gateway
  9. Mayr, P.: DigiLink - Die dritte Generation der Linklisten (2005) 0.01 
    0.007460008 = product of:
  0.052220054 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3582, 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=3582)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Als Linklisten "der dritten Generation" werden in diesem Artikel Systeme zur kooperativen Verwaltung von Internetlinks und Datenbankbeschreibungen bezeichnet. Mit DigiLink wird ein Vertreter dieses Typs näher vorgestellt. DigiLink ist eine Eigenentwicklung des hbz, die sich besonders durch hohe Anpassungsfähigkeit im Layout und in der Organisation der verwalteten Bestände auszeichnet. Diese Flexibilität begünstigt den Einsatz in unterschiedlichen Bibliothekstypen, derzeit (April 2005) verwalten knapp 70 Standorte die rund 1.000 Einträge. Ursprünglich als Modul der "Digitalen Bibliothek" konzipiert, wird DigiLink zunehmend auch unabhängig davon eingesetzt und direkt in den eigenen Internetauftritt integriert.
    Theme
    Information Gateway
  10. Mayr, P.; Schaer, P.; Mutschke, P.: ¬A science model driven retrieval prototype (2011) 0.01 
    0.007154687 = product of:
  0.050082806 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 649, 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=649)
    0.044029012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044029012 = score(doc=649,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper is about a better understanding of the structure and dynamics of science and the usage of these insights for compensating the typical problems that arises in metadata-driven Digital Libraries. Three science model driven retrieval services are presented: co-word analysis based query expansion, re-ranking via Bradfordizing and author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments from which two important implications emerge: (1) precision values of the retrieval services are the same or better than the tf-idf retrieval baseline and (2) each service retrieved a disjoint set of documents. The different services each favor quite other - but still relevant - documents than pure term-frequency based rankings. The proposed models and derived retrieval services therefore open up new viewpoints on the scientific knowledge space and provide an alternative framework to structure scholarly information systems.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  11. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.; Schaer, P.; Sure, Y.: Applying science models for search (2010) 0.01 
    0.007083241 = product of:
  0.049582683 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=4663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4663, 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=4663)
    0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041510954 = score(doc=4663,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 4663, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4663)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The paper proposes three different kinds of science models as value-added services that are integrated in the retrieval process to enhance retrieval quailty. The paper discusses the approaches Search Term Recommendation, Bradfordizing and Author Centrality on a general level and addresses implementation issues of the models within a real-life retrieval environment.
    Source
    Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker
  12. Mayr, P.; Tosques, F.: Webometrische Analysen mit Hilfe der Google Web APIs (2005) 0.01 
    0.0070486804 = product of:
  0.049340762 = sum of:
    0.042278 = weight(_text_:web in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042278 = score(doc=3189,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=3189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Der Report stellt die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen der Google Web APIs (Google API) dar. Die Implementierung der Google API anhand einzelner informationswissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen aus der Webometrie ergibt, dass die Google API mit Einschränkungen für internetbezogene Untersuchungen eingesetzt werden können. Vergleiche der Trefferergebnisse über die beiden Google-Schnittstellen Google API und die Standard Weboberfläche Google.com (Google Web) zeigen Unterschiede bezüglich der Reichweite, der Zusammensetzung und Verfügbarkeit. Die Untersuchung basiert auf einfachen und erweiterten Suchanfragen in den Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch. Die analysierten Treffermengen der Google API bestätigen tendenziell frühere Internet-Studien.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.1, S.41-48
  13. Lauser, B.; Johannsen, G.; Caracciolo, C.; Hage, W.R. van; Keizer, J.; Mayr, P.: Comparing human and automatic thesaurus mapping approaches in the agricultural domain (2008) 0.01 
    0.0066988147 = product of:
  0.031261135 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  14. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.01 
    0.0059455284 = product of:
  0.041618697 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4910, 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=4910)
    0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031133216 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4910, 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=4910)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    RSWK
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
    Subject
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
  15. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Schaer, P.; Sure, Y.: Mehrwertdienste für das Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.00524566 = product of:
  0.036719617 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=935,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 935, 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=935)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Ziel des Projekts ist die Entwicklung und Erprobung von metadatenbasierten Mehr-wertdiensten für Retrievalumgebungen mit mehreren Datenbanken: a) Search Term Recommender (STR) als Dienst zum automatischen Vorschlagen von Suchbegriffen aus kontrollierten Vokabularen, b) Bradfordizing als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von Ergebnismengen nach Kernzeitschriften und c) Autorenzentralität als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von. Ergebnismengen nach Zentralität der Autoren in Autorennetzwerken. Schwerpunkt des Projektes ist die prototypische mplementierung der drei Mehrwertdienste in einer integrierten Retrieval-Testumgebung und insbesondere deren quantitative und qualitative Evaluation hinsichtlich Verbesserung der Retrievalqualität bei Einsatz der Mehrwertdienste.
  16. Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016) 0.01 
    0.0050347717 = product of:
  0.0352434 = sum of:
    0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03019857 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, 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=3144)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3144, 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=3144)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
  17. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Cross-concordances : terminology mapping and its effectiveness for information retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.00406575 = product of:
  0.028460251 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=2323,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2323, 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=2323)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2323, 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=2323)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative, which found its conclusion in 2007. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'cross-concordances' between controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. 64 crosswalks with more than 500,000 relations were established. In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment was conducted. The paper reports on the cross-concordance work and evaluation results.
    Content
    Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.
  18. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Crosskonkordanzen : Terminologie Mapping und deren Effektivität für das Information Retrieval 0.00 
    0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1996)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=1996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1996, 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=1996)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
  19. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.00 
    0.0033944983 = product of:
  0.023761487 = sum of:
    0.019725623 = weight(_text_:web in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019725623 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
  20. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.; Walter, A.-K.: Results from a German terminology mapping effort : intra- and interdisciplinary cross-concordances between controlled vocabularies (2007) 0.00 
    0.0027524815 = product of:
  0.019267369 = sum of:
    0.012204607 = weight(_text_:web in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012204607 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=542,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).
    In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort is under way to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment. Actual user queries are tested in a distributed search environment, where several bibliographic databases with different controlled vocabularies are searched at the same time. Three query variations are compared to each other: a free-text search without focusing on using the controlled vocabulary or terminology mapping; a controlled vocabulary search, where terms from one vocabulary (a 'home' vocabulary thought to be familiar to the user of a particular database) are used to search all databases; and finally, a search, where controlled vocabulary terms are translated into the terms of the respective controlled vocabulary of the database. For evaluation purposes, types of cross-concordances are distinguished between intradisciplinary vocabularies (vocabularies within the social sciences) and interdisciplinary vocabularies (social sciences to other disciplines as well as other combinations). Simultaneously, an extensive quantitative analysis is conducted aimed at finding patterns in terminology mappings that can explain trends in the effectiveness of terminology mappings, particularly looking at overlapping terms, types of determined relations (equivalence, hierarchy etc.), size of participating vocabularies, etc. This project is the largest terminology mapping effort in Germany. The number and variety of controlled vocabularies targeted provide an optimal basis for insights and further research opportunities. To our knowledge, terminology mapping efforts have rarely been evaluated with stringent qualitative and quantitative measures. This research should contribute in this area. For the NKOS workshop, we plan to present an overview of the project and participating vocabularies, an introduction to the heterogeneity service and its application as well as some of the results and findings of the evaluation, which will be concluded in August.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 18
  • e 15

Types

  • a 24
  • el 10
  • r 2
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications