Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Gartner, R.: Metadata in the digital library : building an integrated strategy with XML (2021) 0.01
    0.014669115 = product of:
      0.06845587 = sum of:
        0.031063944 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031063944 = score(doc=732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.22167085 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
        0.033111244 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033111244 = score(doc=732,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.27216077 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
        0.00428068 = weight(_text_:information in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00428068 = score(doc=732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The range of metadata needed to run a digital library and preserve its collections in the long term is much more extensive and complicated than anything in its traditional counterpart. It includes the same 'descriptive' information which guides users to the resources they require but must supplement this with comprehensive 'administrative' metadata: this encompasses technical details of the files that make up its collections, the documentation of complex intellectual property rights and the extensive set needed to support its preservation in the long-term. To accommodate all of this requires the use of multiple metadata standards, all of which have to be brought together into a single integrated whole.
    Classification
    AN 73700: Digitale Bibliothek / Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft
    Content
    Inhalt: 1 Introduction, Aims and Definitions -- 1.1 Origins -- 1.2 From information science to libraries -- 1.3 The central place of metadata -- 1.4 The book in outline -- 2 Metadata Basics -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Three types of metadata -- 2.2.1 Descriptive metadata -- 2.2.2 Administrative metadata -- 2.2.3 Structural metadata -- 2.3 The core components of metadata -- 2.3.1 Syntax -- 2.3.2 Semantics -- 2.3.3 Content rules -- 2.4 Metadata standards -- 2.5 Conclusion -- 3 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Basic Principles -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Principle 1: Support all stages of the digital curation lifecycle -- 3.3 Principle 2: Support the long-term preservation of the digital object -- 3.4 Principle 3: Ensure interoperability -- 3.5 Principle 4: Control metadata content wherever possible -- 3.6 Principle 5: Ensure software independence -- 3.7 Principle 6: Impose a logical system of identifiers -- 3.8 Principle 7: Use standards whenever possible -- 3.9 Principle 8: Ensure the integrity of the metadata itself -- 3.10 Summary: the basic principles of a metadata strategy -- 4 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Applying the Basic Principles -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Initial steps: standards as a foundation -- 4.2.1 'Off-the shelf' standards -- 4.2.2 Mapping out an architecture and serialising it into a standard -- 4.2.3 Devising a local metadata scheme -- 4.2.4 How standards support the basic principles -- 4.3 Identifiers: everything in its place -- 5 XML: The Syntactical Foundation of Metadata -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 What XML looks like -- 5.3 XML schemas -- 5.4 Namespaces -- 5.5 Creating and editing XML -- 5.6 Transforming XML -- 5.7 Why use XML? -- 6 METS: The Metadata Package -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Why use METS?.
    RSWK
    Elektronische Bibliothek / Metadaten
    RVK
    AN 73700: Digitale Bibliothek / Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft
    Subject
    Elektronische Bibliothek / Metadaten
  2. Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung (2021) 0.01
    0.007843386 = product of:
      0.036602467 = sum of:
        0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013948122 = score(doc=753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
        0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005707573 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
        0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016946774 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Content
    Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack
    Footnote
    Vgl.: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110691597/html. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110691597. Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 73(2022) H.2-3, S.131-132 (B. Lorenz u. V. Steyer). Weitere Rezension in: o-bib 9(20229 Nr.3. (Martin Völkl) [https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5843/8714].
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  3. Baroncini, S.; Sartini, B.; Erp, M. Van; Tomasi, F.; Gangemi, A.: Is dc:subject enough? : A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web (2023) 0.01
    0.0056159133 = product of:
      0.03931139 = sum of:
        0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027896244 = score(doc=1030,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
        0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011415146 = score(doc=1030,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  4. Koho, M.; Burrows, T.; Hyvönen, E.; Ikkala, E.; Page, K.; Ransom, L.; Tuominen, J.; Emery, D.; Fraas, M.; Heller, B.; Lewis, D.; Morrison, A.; Porte, G.; Thomson, E.; Velios, A.; Wijsman, H.: Harmonizing and publishing heterogeneous premodern manuscript metadata as Linked Open Data (2022) 0.00
    0.0035099457 = product of:
      0.02456962 = sum of:
        0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017435152 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 466, 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=466)
        0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071344664 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 466, 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=466)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Manuscripts are a crucial form of evidence for research into all aspects of premodern European history and culture, and there are numerous databases devoted to describing them in detail. This descriptive information, however, is typically available only in separate data silos based on incompatible data models and user interfaces. As a result, it has been difficult to study manuscripts comprehensively across these various platforms. To address this challenge, a team of manuscript scholars and computer scientists worked to create "Mapping Manuscript Migrations" (MMM), a semantic portal, and a Linked Open Data service. MMM stands as a successful proof of concept for integrating distinct manuscript datasets into a shared platform for research and discovery with the potential for future expansion. This paper will discuss the major products of the MMM project: a unified data model, a repeatable data transformation pipeline, a Linked Open Data knowledge graph, and a Semantic Web portal. It will also examine the crucial importance of an iterative process of multidisciplinary collaboration embedded throughout the project, enabling humanities researchers to shape the development of a digital platform and tools, while also enabling the same researchers to ask more sophisticated and comprehensive research questions of the aggregated data.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.240-257
  5. Markus, K.: Metadatenschemata für Forschungsdaten : Generische Standards und Spezifika in der Biologie und den Ingenieurwissenschaften (2020) 0.00
    0.002787284 = product of:
      0.039021976 = sum of:
        0.039021976 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039021976 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Content
    https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/bibliothek/article/view/77851. https://doi.org/10.11588/pb.2020.1.77851.
    Source
    Perspektive Bibliothek. 9(2020) H.1, S.xx-xx
  6. Guerrini, M.: Metadata: the dimension of cataloging in the digital age (2022) 0.00
    0.0014978976 = product of:
      0.020970564 = sum of:
        0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020970564 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Metadata creation is the process of recording metadata, that is data essential to the identification and retrieval of any type of resource, including bibliographic resources. Metadata capable of identifying characteristics of an entity have always existed. However, the triggering event that has rewritten and enhanced their value is the digital revolution. Cataloging is configured as an action of creating metadata. While cataloging produces a catalog, that is a list of records relating to various types of resources, ordered and searchable, according to a defined criterion, the metadata process produces the metadata of the resources.
  7. Lorenzo, L.; Mak, L.; Smeltekop, N.: FAST Headings in MODS : Michigan State University libraries digital repository case study (2023) 0.00
    0.0014978976 = product of:
      0.020970564 = sum of:
        0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020970564 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
  8. Morrow, G.; Swire-Thompson, B.; Montgomery Polny, J.; Kopec, M.; Wihbey, J.P.: ¬The emerging science of content labeling : contextualizing social media content moderation (2022) 0.00
    8.64828E-4 = product of:
      0.012107591 = sum of:
        0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012107591 = score(doc=660,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    In the online information ecosystem, a content label is an attachment to a piece of content intended to contextualize that content for the viewer. Content labels are information about information, such as fact-checks or sensitive content warnings. Research into content labeling is nascent, but growing; researchers have made strides toward understanding labeling best practices to deal with issues such as disinformation, and misleading content that may affect everything from voting to health. To make this review tractable, we focus on compiling the literature that can contextualize labeling effects and consequences. This review summarizes the central labeling literature, highlights gaps for future research, discusses considerations for social media, and explores definitions toward a taxonomy. Specifically, this article discusses the particulars of content labels, their presentation, and the effects of various labels. The current literature can guide the usage of labels on social media platforms and inform public debate over platform moderation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1365-1386
  9. Zavalin, V.: Exploration of subject and genre representation in bibliographic metadata representing works of fiction for children and young adults (2024) 0.00
    7.48963E-4 = product of:
      0.0104854815 = sum of:
        0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0104854815 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1152, 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=1152)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).
  10. Skare, R.: Paratext (2020) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=20,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 20, 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=20)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents Gérard Genette's concept of the paratext by defining the term and by describing its characteristics. The use of the concept in disciplines other than literary studies and for media other than printed books is discussed. The last section shows the relevance of the concept for library and information science in general and for knowledge organization, in which paratext in particular is connected to the concept "metadata."
  11. Assfalg, R.: Metadaten (2023) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 787, 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=787)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Bei der Betrachtung von Datensätzen in relationalen Datenbanksystemen, von Datenmengen im Kontext von Big Data, von Ausprägungen gängiger XML-Anwendungen oder von Referenzdatenbeständen im Bereich Information und Dokumentation (IuD), fällt eine wichtige Gemeinsamkeit auf: Diese Bestände benötigen eine Beschreibung ihrer inneren Struktur. Bei diesen Strukturbeschreibungen handelt es sich also sozusagen um "Daten über Daten", und diese können kurz gefasst auch als Metadaten bezeichnet werden. Hierzu gehören Syntaxelemente und ggf. eine Spezifikation, wie diese Syntaxelemente angewendet werden.
  12. Sewing, S.: Bestandserhaltung und Archivierung : Koordinierung auf der Basis eines gemeinsamen Metadatenformates in den deutschen und österreichischen Bibliotheksverbünden (2021) 0.00
    5.735585E-4 = product of:
      0.008029819 = sum of:
        0.008029819 = product of:
          0.024089456 = sum of:
            0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024089456 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  13. Yang, T.-H.; Hsieh, Y.-L.; Liu, S.-H.; Chang, Y.-C.; Hsu, W.-L.: ¬A flexible template generation and matching method with applications for publication reference metadata extraction (2021) 0.00
    5.0960475E-4 = product of:
      0.0071344664 = sum of:
        0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071344664 = score(doc=63,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 63, 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=63)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Conventional rule-based approaches use exact template matching to capture linguistic information and necessarily need to enumerate all variations. We propose a novel flexible template generation and matching scheme called the principle-based approach (PBA) based on sequence alignment, and employ it for reference metadata extraction (RME) to demonstrate its effectiveness. The main contributions of this research are threefold. First, we propose an automatic template generation that can capture prominent patterns using the dominating set algorithm. Second, we devise an alignment-based template-matching technique that uses a logistic regression model, which makes it more general and flexible than pure rule-based approaches. Last, we apply PBA to RME on extensive cross-domain corpora and demonstrate its robustness and generality. Experiments reveal that the same set of templates produced by the PBA framework not only deliver consistent performance on various unseen domains, but also surpass hand-crafted knowledge (templates). We use four independent journal style test sets and one conference style test set in the experiments. When compared to renowned machine learning methods, such as conditional random fields (CRF), as well as recent deep learning methods (i.e., bi-directional long short-term memory with a CRF layer, Bi-LSTM-CRF), PBA has the best performance for all datasets.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.1, S.32-45
  14. Furner, J.: Definitions of "metadata" : a brief survey of international standards (2020) 0.00
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
      0.0060537956 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5912, 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=5912)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.6, S.E33-E42
  15. Vorndran, A.; Grund, S.: Metadata sharing : how to transfer metadata information among work cluster members (2021) 0.00
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
      0.0060537956 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 721, 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=721)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
  16. Hansson, K.; Dahlgren, A.: Open research data repositories : practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images (2022) 0.00
    3.6034497E-4 = product of:
      0.0050448296 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 472, 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=472)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.303-316
  17. Lee, S.: Pidgin metadata framework as a mediator for metadata interoperability (2021) 0.00
    3.6034497E-4 = product of:
      0.0050448296 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    A pidgin metadata framework based on the concept of pidgin metadata is proposed to complement the limitations of existing approaches to metadata interoperability and to achieve more reliable metadata interoperability. The framework consists of three layers, with a hierarchical structure, and reflects the semantic and structural characteristics of various metadata. Layer 1 performs both an external function, serving as an anchor for semantic association between metadata elements, and an internal function, providing semantic categories that can encompass detailed elements. Layer 2 is an arbitrary layer composed of substantial elements from existing metadata and performs a function in which different metadata elements describing the same or similar aspects of information resources are associated with the semantic categories of Layer 1. Layer 3 implements the semantic relationships between Layer 1 and Layer 2 through the Resource Description Framework syntax. With this structure, the pidgin metadata framework can establish the criteria for semantic connection between different elements and fully reflect the complexity and heterogeneity among various metadata. Additionally, it is expected to provide a bibliographic environment that can achieve more reliable metadata interoperability than existing approaches by securing the communication between metadata.
  18. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Chen, J.; Liang, H.: Designing for serendipity in online knowledge communities : an investigation of tag presentation formats and openness to experience (2022) 0.00
    3.6034497E-4 = product of:
      0.0050448296 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1401-1417
  19. Laparra, E.; Binford-Walsh, A.; Emerson, K.; Miller, M.L.; López-Hoffman, L.; Currim, F.; Bethard, S.: Addressing structural hurdles for metadata extraction from environmental impact statements (2023) 0.00
    3.6034497E-4 = product of:
      0.0050448296 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=1042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1042, 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=1042)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.9, S.1124-1139