Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.01958819 = product of:
  0.08814685 = sum of:
    0.037849274 = weight(_text_:wide in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037849274 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1546338 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.050297573 = weight(_text_:web in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050297573 = score(doc=4972,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

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

0.012194685 = product of:
  0.05487608 = sum of:
    0.045419127 = weight(_text_:wide in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045419127 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1546338 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.009456957 = product of:
      0.02837087 = sum of:
        0.02837087 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02837087 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.006196918 = product of:
  0.05577226 = sum of:
    0.05577226 = weight(_text_:modell in 2061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05577226 = score(doc=2061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2098649 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.26575315 = fieldWeight in 2061, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2061)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Die vorliegende Arbeit ist einem Teilbereich der Sacherschließung gewidmet, dem erst in den letzten zehn Jahren etwas mehr Aufmerksamkeit zuteil geworden ist: der Inhaltsanalyse. Dabei handelt es sich um die Frage, wie sich Inhalte von Dokumenten' adäquat beschreiben lassen. Damit der Inhalt eines Dokuments im Anschluß an eine solche Beschreibung in einem Sachkatalog erfaßt werden kann, muß zunächst die Frage beantwortet werden, aufgrund welcher Kriterien wir entscheiden, was denn den Inhalt eines Dokuments ausmacht. Es läßt sich mit guten Gründen vermuten, daß die Antworten auf diese Frage sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen können. Anliegen dieser Arbeit ist es jedoch nicht, im Durchgang durch die bisher zu diesem Thema erschienene Literatur'- eine ganze Reihe von Antworten auf die eingangs formulierte Frage zu liefern. Derek Langridge hat mit seiner 1989 veröffentlichen Arbeit "Subject Analysis: Principles and Procedures" (dt. 1994) ein sehr grundlegendes und komplexes Konzept für die Inhaltsanalyse vorgelegt, das immer noch als einzigartig gelten kann. Durch die Beschränkung auf diesen einen, bislang differenziertesten Ansatz wird eine bessere Einsicht in die mit der Inhaltsanalyse verbundenen Probleme geboten als bei einer Behandlung sehr unterschiedlicher Modelle. Die Diskussion von Langridge's Konzeption wird deutlich machen, mit wievielen Problemen ein universaler Entwurf für die Inhaltsanalyse schon von der Sache her behaftet ist. Der erste Teil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich also mit einem theoretischen Konzept zur Inhaltsanalyse, das die begriffliche Folie für den zweiten Teil der Arbeit bildet. wo es um die Frage geht, inwieweit die "Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung" Inhaltsanalyse thematisieren und deren Forderungen auch an eine Schlagwortkata- logisierung angemessen berücksichtigen. Die ausführliche Erörterung der mit der Inhaltsanalyse zusammenhängenden theoretischen Probleme und ihrer oft philosophischen Implikationen ist deshalb notwendig, weil andernfalls die im zweiten Teil der Arbeit geäußerte Kritik an einer bestimmten Praxis deutlich an Gewicht verlöre. Daß auch der zweite Teil der Arbeit, wenn auch in anderer Form als der erste, einen theoretischen Fokus hat, hängt mit dem Umstand zusammen, daß sich die weitreichenden praktischen Auswirkungen eines Regelwerks wie den RSWK immer theoretischen Überlegungen verdanken, die in bestimmten Regeln Gestalt annehmen. Das einleitende zweite Kapitel der Arbeit beantwortet die Frage nach dem genauen Ort der Inhaltsanalyse im Kontext der Sacherschliessung und benennt allgemeine methodische Schwierigkeiten, die eine Inhaltsanalyse zu bewältigen hat. Außerdem wird hier die wachsende Bedeutung der Inhaltsanalyse angesichts der "Informationsflut'` im Internet expliziert. Das dritte Kapitel diskutiert Langridge's Modell. Nach der Ausführung von grundsätzlichen Überzeugungen Langridge's zum Auftrag von Bibliothekaren und zur Rolle der Bibliothekspraxis im Wissenschaftsbetrieb wird seine Konzeption einer Neuordnung des gesamten menschlichen Wissens im Detail vorgestellt. An die Klärung seiner Grundbegriffe schließt sich eine praktische Anleitung zur Inhaltsanalyse an. Ein kurzes Resümee bildet den Abschluß des Kapitels. Im vierten, den RSWK gewidmeten Kapitel werden zunächst in einem Exkurs Normierungsversuche der Inhaltsanalyse durch den ISO-Standard 5963 und die DIN-Norm 31623 vorgestellt, auf die die RSWK ausdrücklich Bezug nehmen. Der Diskussion des theoretischen Konzepts der Inhaltsanalyse schließen sich Erörterungen von praktischen Problemen an, die sich aus der Behandlung von inhaltsanalytisch relevanten Gesichtspunkten in den RSWK wie etwa dem .,engen Schlagwort". Weltanschauungen oder Zielgruppen von Dokumenten ergeben. Dabei werden vor allem Beispiele untersucht, die von den RSWK zur Illustration ihrer Regeln selbst angeführt werden. Das abschließende Resümee im fünften Kapitel reformuliert nocheinmal wesentliche Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit

Content

"Resümee: Zum Abschluß möchte ich noch einmal wesentliche Ergebnisse der Arbeit in Kürze Revue passieren lassen. Während ihr erster Teil auf die theoretische Klärung des Begriffs der Inhaltsanalyse abzielte, war der zweite der praktischen Frage gewidmet, ob die "Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung" ein Konzept der Inhaltsanalyse zu bieten haben und inwieweit Forderungen der Inhaltsanalyse in den RSWK Berücksichtigung finden. Der erste Teil ist, durch seinen Gegenstand bedingt, immer wieder von grundsätzlichen philosophischen Überlegungen geprägt gewesen und bildete die begriffliche Folie, vor deren Hintergrund der gesamte zweite Teil zu sehen ist. Mit Langridge's Entwurf wurde das bislang differenzierteste Modell zur Inhaltsanalyse vorgestellt und im einzelnen diskutiert. Dabei wurden vorab die besonderen methodischen Probleme benannt, mit der jedes Konzept einer Inhaltsanalyse konfrontiert ist. Sie hängen mit dem aus analytischer Sicht schwierigen strukturellen oder auch hermeneutischen Status von Texten ganz allgemein zusammen, der ein generelles Problem besonders in den Geisteswissenschaften darstellt. Dem Umstand, daß der Inhaltsanalyse gerade angesichts der immer stärker ausufernden Informationsflut im Internet als Grundlage für eine qualitative Sichtung und Ordnung von relevanten Informationen eine neue wichtige Aufgabe zuteil geworden ist, wurde ebenfalls Rechnung getragen. Neben seinem ausgeprägten pädagogischen Selbstverständnis ist es vor allem der epistemologische Anspruch einer Neuordnung des gesamten menschlichen Wissens, der Langridge's Entwurf ausgesprochen ambitioniert erscheinen läßt. Sein Begriff der Wissensformen, verstanden als Art der Wahrnehmung der Phänomene in der Welt, ordnet auch die klassischen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen neu, während sein Begriff des Themas die Phänomene selbst faßt. Der dritte zentrale Begriff seiner Konzeption, die Dokumentenform, zielt auf die ideologische Perspektive eines Dokuments, sofern sie für dessen Struktur relevant ist. Langridge's selbst formulierter Anspruch ist es, mit seinem Begriff der Wissensform auf der Ebene von Wissensdisziplinen und menschlichen Aktivitäten das zu leisten, was Ranganathans berühmte Universalklassifikation auf der thematischen Ebene geleistet hat. Die Stärke von Ranganathans Modell liegt jedoch im Unterschied zu dem seines Nachfolgers meines Erachtens darin, daß gerade nicht apriorisch verstandene, unveränderliche Formen des Wissens postuliert werden. Die zu ziehende Lehre aus dem Umstand sich ständig wandelnder Wissenschaftsdisziplinen sollte eine pragmatisch agierende, bibliothekarische Selbstbescheidung sein und nicht eine Selbstüberhebung über den Wissenschaftsbetreib. Langridge kann, so gesehen, seinem universalen Anspruch gar nicht gerecht werden, weil es die von ihm vermutete göttliche Ordnung des Wissens, die von einem immer in praktischen Zweckzusammenhängen agierenden Wissenschaftsbetrieb unabhängig wäre, in einem ontologischen Sinne wohl kaum gibt. Unstrittig scheint mir hingegen seine wohlbegründete Überlegung, daß ein Indexierer schon bei der Ermittlung zentraler Begriffe eines Dokuments notwendig - in einem rein analytischen, noch nicht bibliothekstechnischen Sinn - Wissen klassifiziert. Die Stärke von Langridge's Modell liegt nun gerade darin, diese klassifikatorische Tätigkeit so transparent wie möglich zu machen. Die genauere Betrachtung der Grundregeln der RSWK hat ergeben, daß sie kein schlüssiges Konzept für die Inhaltsanalyse zu bieten haben. Auch die von Langridge wie der DIN-Norm 31623 geforderte Unabhängigkeit der Inhaltsanalyse von der sich an sie anschließenden Übersetzung ihrer Ergebnisse in eine Dokumentationssprache wird schon im Konzept der RSWK unterlaufen. Die Inhaltsanalyse ist hier ganz entgegen theoretischer Postulate eng verwoben mit der streng geregelten Bildung von Schlagwörtern, was in einigen Fällen eine aus inhaltsanalytischer Sicht angemessene Kurzbeschreibung eines Dokuments fraglich macht.

0.0060363994 = product of:
  0.054327592 = sum of:
    0.054327592 = weight(_text_:web in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054327592 = score(doc=1863,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

0.004205475 = product of:
  0.037849274 = sum of:
    0.037849274 = weight(_text_:wide in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037849274 = score(doc=2667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1546338 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

0.0039517507 = product of:
  0.035565756 = sum of:
    0.035565756 = weight(_text_:web in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035565756 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

0.0029990133 = product of:
  0.02699112 = sum of:
    0.02699112 = product of:
      0.08097336 = sum of:
        0.08097336 = weight(_text_:29 in 6362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08097336 = score(doc=6362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.6595664 = fieldWeight in 6362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6362)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

Computers and the humanities. 29(1995) no.5, S.339-361

0.0029990133 = product of:
  0.02699112 = sum of:
    0.02699112 = product of:
      0.08097336 = sum of:
        0.08097336 = weight(_text_:29 in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08097336 = score(doc=822,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.6595664 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

Computers and the humanities. 29(1995) no.4, S.259-270

0.0028274967 = product of:
  0.025447471 = sum of:
    0.025447471 = product of:
      0.07634241 = sum of:
        0.07634241 = weight(_text_:29 in 2387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07634241 = score(doc=2387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 2387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2387)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of documentation. 29(1973) no.2, S.137-168

0.002737853 = product of:
  0.024640677 = sum of:
    0.024640677 = weight(_text_:web in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024640677 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

0.002737853 = product of:
  0.024640677 = sum of:
    0.024640677 = weight(_text_:web in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024640677 = score(doc=4570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4570, 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=4570)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Some collections cover many topics, while others are narrowly focused an a limited number of topics. We introduce the concept of the "scope" of a collection of documents and we compare two ways of measuring lt. These measures are based an the distances between documents. The first uses the overlap of words between pairs of documents. The second measure uses a novel method that calculates the semantic relatedness to pairs of words from the documents. Those values are combined to obtain an overall distance between the documents. The main validation for the measures compared Web pages categorized by Yahoo. Sets of pages sampied from broad categories were determined to have a higher scope than sets derived from subcategories. The measure was significant and confirmed the expected difference in scope. Finally, we discuss other measures related to scope.

0.0025232849 = product of:
  0.022709563 = sum of:
    0.022709563 = weight(_text_:wide in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022709563 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1546338 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.

0.0018252354 = product of:
  0.016427118 = sum of:
    0.016427118 = weight(_text_:web in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016427118 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113896765 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034900077 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2671, 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=2671)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.

0.0017512884 = product of:
  0.015761595 = sum of:
    0.015761595 = product of:
      0.047284786 = sum of:
        0.047284786 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047284786 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.0014073896 = product of:
  0.012666507 = sum of:
    0.012666507 = product of:
      0.01899976 = sum of:
        0.009542801 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009542801 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
        0.009456958 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009456958 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

0.0014010308 = product of:
  0.012609277 = sum of:
    0.012609277 = product of:
      0.03782783 = sum of:
        0.03782783 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03782783 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0014010308 = product of:
  0.012609277 = sum of:
    0.012609277 = product of:
      0.03782783 = sum of:
        0.03782783 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03782783 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.001238348 = product of:
  0.011145132 = sum of:
    0.011145132 = product of:
      0.033435393 = sum of:
        0.033435393 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033435393 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12221412 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

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

0.0012370298 = product of:
  0.011133268 = sum of:
    0.011133268 = product of:
      0.0333998 = sum of:
        0.0333998 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0333998 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, 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=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

0.0012370298 = product of:
  0.011133268 = sum of:
    0.011133268 = product of:
      0.0333998 = sum of:
        0.0333998 = weight(_text_:29 in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0333998 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12276756 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034900077 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5187, 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=5187)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Chen arranged with an Art History instructor to require 20 medieval art images in papers received from 29 students. Participants completed a self administered presearch and postsearch questionnaire, and were interviewed after questionnaire analysis, in order to collect both the keywords and phrases they planned to use, and those actually used. Three MLIS student reviewers then mapped the queries to Enser and McGregor's four categories, Jorgensen's 12 classes, and Fidel's 12 feature data and object poles providing a degree of match on a seven point scale (one not at all to 7 exact). The reviewers give highest scores to Enser and McGregor;'s categories. Modifications to both the Enser and McGregor and Jorgensen schemes are suggested