Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0456195 = product of:
  0.06842925 = sum of:
    0.027027493 = weight(_text_:im in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027027493 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
    0.04140175 = product of:
      0.062102623 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2131, 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=2131)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.030712081 = product of:
  0.04606812 = sum of:
    0.013513747 = weight(_text_:im in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013513747 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.09369561 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.032554373 = product of:
      0.048831556 = sum of:
        0.02202896 = weight(_text_:online in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02202896 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.142261 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
        0.026802596 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026802596 = score(doc=1202,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.17366013 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."
But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.013534586 = product of:
  0.040603757 = sum of:
    0.040603757 = weight(_text_:im in 2678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040603757 = score(doc=2678,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.28152028 = fieldWeight in 2678, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2678)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"An einem trüben Novembertag 2008 sitzen zwei Männer an einem ovalen Konferenztisch. Sie befinden sich wie die meisten Geschäftstreibenden im Strudel der Finanzmärkte. Ihr Tisch steht im einzigen mehrstöckigen Nachwendebau der Berliner Karl-Marx-Allee. Links vom Fenster leuchtet die Spitze des Fernsehturms, rechts fällt der Blick auf kilometerlange Kachelfassaden. Die Verhandlungen mit den Investoren ziehen sich seit Wochen hin. Ein rhetorisches Ringen. Der Hirnforscher fragt: "Ist Wissen mit großem 'W' und wissen mit kleinem 'w' für Sie das Gleiche?" Der Vertriebsmann sagt: "Learntainment", "Knowledge Nuggets", "Mindmapping". Am Ende liegt ein unterschriebener Vertrag auf dem Tisch - an einem Tag, an dem Daimler laut über Kurzarbeit nachdenkt. Martin Hirsch und Ralf von Grafenstein genehmigen sich einen Piccolo. In der schwersten Wirtschaftskrise der Bundesrepublik haben sie für "eyePlorer" einen potenten Investor gefunden. Er hat die Tragweite ihrer Idee verstanden, und er hat begriffen: Die Welt ist eine Scheibe.
Eine neue visuelle Ordnung Martin Hirsch ist der Enkel des Nobelpreisträgers Werner Heisenberg. Außerdem ist er Hirnforscher und beschäftigt sich seit Jahren mit der Frage: Was tut mein Kopf eigentlich, während ich hirnforsche? Ralf von Grafenstein ist Marketingexperte und spezialisiert auf Dienstleistungen im Internet. Zusammen haben sie also am 1. Dezember 2008 eine Firma in Berlin gegründet, deren Heiliger Gral besagte Scheibe ist, auf der - das ist die Idee - bald die ganze Welt, die Internetwelt zumindest, Platz finden soll. Die Scheibe heißt eyePlorer, was sich als Aufforderung an ihre Nutzer versteht. Die sollen auf einer neuartigen, eben scheibenförmigen Plattform die unermesslichen Datensätze des Internets in eine neue visuelle Ordnung bringen. Der Schlüssel dafür, da waren sich Hirsch und von Grafenstein sicher, liegt in der Hirnforschung, denn warum nicht die assoziativen Fähigkeiten des Menschen auf Suchmaschinen übertragen? Anbieter wie Google lassen von solchen Ansätzen bislang die Finger. Hier setzt man dafür auf Volltextprogramme, also sprachbegabte Systeme, die letztlich aber, genau wie die Schlagwortsuche, nur zu opak gerankten Linksammlungen führen. Weiter als auf Seite zwei des Suchergebnisses wagt sich der träge Nutzer meistens nicht vor. Weil sie niemals wahrgenommen wird, fällt eine Menge möglicherweise kostbare Information unter den Tisch.
Skelett mit Sonnenbrille Hirsch sitzt in einem grell erleuchteten Konferenzraum. In der rechten Ecke steht ein Skelett, dem jemand eine Sonnenbrille aufgeklemmt hat. In der Hand hält Hirsch ein Modellgehirn, auf dem er im Rhythmus seines Sprachflusses mit den Fingern trommelt. Obwohl im Verlauf der nächsten Stunden erschreckend verwickelte Netzdiagramme zum Einsatz kommen, hält Hirsch sich an die Suggestivkraft des Bildes. Er sagt: "Das Primärerlebnis der Maschine ist bei Google das eines Jägers. Sie pirscht sich an eine Internetseite heran." Man denkt: "Genauso fühlt es sich an: Suchbegriff eingeben, 'enter' drücken, Website schießen!", schon kommt die Komplementärmetapher geschmeidig aus dem Köcher: Im Gegensatz zum Google-Jäger, sagt Hirsch, sei der eyePlorer ein Sammler, der stöbere, organisiere und dann von allem nasche. Hier werden Informationen, auf die handelsübliche Suchmaschinen nur verweisen, kulinarisch aufbereitet und zu Schwerpunkten verknüpft. Im Gegensatz zu ihren Vorgängern ist die Maschine ansatzweise intelligent. Sie findet im Laufe einer Sitzung heraus, worum es dem Benutzer geht, versteht den Zusammenhang von Suche und Inhalt und ist deshalb in der Lage, Empfehlungen auszusprechen.
Einstein, Weizsäcker und Hitler Zu Demonstrationszwecken wird die eyePlorer-Scheibe an die Wand projiziert. Gibt man im kleinen Suchfeld in der Mitte den Namen Werner Heisenberg ein, verwandelt sich die Scheibe in einen Tortenboden. Die einzelnen Stücke entsprechen Kategorien wie "Person", "Technologie" oder "Organisation". Sie selbst sind mit bunten Knöpfen bedeckt, unter denen sich die Informationen verbergen. So kommt es, dass man beim Thema Heisenberg nicht nur auf die Kollegen Einstein, Weizsäcker und Schrödinger trifft, sondern auch auf Adolf Hitler. Ein Klick auf den entsprechenden Button stellt unter anderem heraus: Heisenberg kam 1933 unter Beschuss der SS, weil er sich nicht vor den Karren einer antisemitischen Physikbewegung spannen ließ. Nach diesem Prinzip spült die frei assoziierende Maschine vollautomatisch immer wieder neue Fakten an, um die der Nutzer zwar nicht gebeten hat, die ihn bei seiner Recherche aber möglicherweise unterstützen und die er später - die Maschine ist noch ausbaubedürftig - auch modellieren darf. Aber will man das, sich von einer Maschine beraten lassen? "Google ist wie ein Zoo", sekundiert Ralf von Grafenstein. "In einem Gehege steht eine Giraffe, im anderen ein Raubtier, aber die sind klar getrennt voneinander durch Gitter und Wege. Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, sie zusammen anzuschauen. Da kommen wir ins Spiel. Wir können Äpfel mit Birnen vergleichen!" Die Welt ist eine Scheibe oder die Scheibe eben eine Welt, auf der vieles mit vielem zusammenhängt und manches auch mit nichts. Der Vorteil dieser Maschine ist, dass sie in Zukunft Sinn stiften könnte, wo andere nur spröde auf Quellen verweisen. "Google ist ja ein unheimlich heterogenes Erlebnis mit ständigen Wartezeiten und Mausklicks dazwischen. Das kostet mich viel zu viel Metagedankenkraft", sagt Hirsch. "Wir wollten eine Maschine mit einer ästhetisch ansprechenden Umgebung bauen, aus der ich mich kaum wegbewege, denn sie liefert mir Informationen in meinen Gedanken hinein."
Wenn die Maschine denkt Zur Hybris des Projekts passt, dass der eyePlorer ursprünglich HAL heißen sollte - wie der außer Rand und Band geratene Bordcomputer aus Kubricks "2001: Odyssee im Weltraum". Wenn man die Buchstaben aber jeweils um eine Alphabetposition nach rechts verrückt, ergibt sich IBM. Was passiert mit unserem Wissen, wenn die Maschine selbst anfängt zu denken? Ralf von Grafenstein macht ein ernstes Gesicht. "Es ist nicht unser Ansinnen, sie alleinzulassen. Es geht bei uns ja nicht nur darum, zu finden, sondern auch mitzumachen. Die Community ist wichtig. Der Dialog ist beiderseitig." Der Lotse soll in Form einer wachsamen Gemeinschaft also an Bord bleiben. Begünstigt wird diese Annahme auch durch die aufkommenden Anfasstechnologien, mit denen das iPhone derzeit so erfolgreich ist: "Allein zehn Prozent der menschlichen Gehirnleistung gehen auf den Pinzettengriff zurück." Martin Hirsch wundert sich, dass diese Erkenntnis von der IT-Branche erst jetzt berücksichtigt wird. Auf berührungssensiblen Bildschirmen sollen die Nutzer mit wenigen Handgriffen bald spielerisch Inhalte schaffen und dem System zur Verfügung stellen. So wird aus der Suchmaschine ein "Sparringspartner" und aus einem Informationsknopf ein "Knowledge Nugget". Wie auch immer man die Erkenntniszutaten des Internetgroßmarkts serviert: Wissen als Zeitwort ist ein länglicher Prozess. Im Moment sei die Maschine noch auf dem Stand eines Zweijährigen, sagen ihre Schöpfer. Sozialisiert werden soll sie demnächst im Internet, ihre Erziehung erfolgt dann durch die Nutzer. Als er Martin Hirsch mit seiner Scheibe zum ersten Mal gesehen habe, dachte Ralf von Grafenstein: "Das ist überfällig! Das wird kommen! Das muss raus!" Jetzt ist es da, klein, unschuldig und unscheinbar. Man findet es bei Google."

0.012740883 = product of:
  0.03822265 = sum of:
    0.03822265 = weight(_text_:im in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03822265 = score(doc=3067,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.26501122 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Zielsetzung - Aufgrund der rasch wachsenden Anzahl an Publikationen zur Informationskompetenz ergibt sich eine zunehmende Notwendigkeit von Überblicksarbeiten. Dieser Betrag hat das Ziel, mittels Science Mapping einen Überblick über die wissenschaftliche Literatur zu schaffen. Forschungsmethoden - Unter Verwendung von BibExcel und VOSviewer wurden 1589 wissenschaftliche Artikel analysiert und drei verschiedene Visualisierungen erstellt. Ergebnisse - Es gibt ein relativ großes internationales Autorennetzwerk, in welchem die meisten Hauptakteure miteinander in Verbindung stehen. Die wichtigsten Schwerpunkte sind: Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz im Hochschulbereich, Prozessmodelle zum Informationssuchverhalten, Phänomenographie und Informationskompetenz im beruflichen Umfeld. Schlussfolgerungen - Viele der Schwerpunkte wurden schon vereinzelt in Review-Artikeln genannt, aber noch nie via Science Mapping zusammen visualisiert. Somit ermöglicht diese Arbeit erstmalig ein »big picture« der Produktionslandschaft. Künftige Arbeiten könnten die Literatur mit anderen Science Mapping Tools bzw. Visualisierungstechniken untersuchen.

0.012184707 = product of:
  0.03655412 = sum of:
    0.03655412 = product of:
      0.054831177 = sum of:
        0.018357467 = weight(_text_:online in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018357467 = score(doc=1211,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.11855084 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=1211,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article we present a method for retrieving documents from a digital library through a visual interface based on automatically generated concepts. We used a vocabulary generation algorithm to generate a set of concepts for the digital library and a technique called the max-min distance technique to cluster them. Additionally, the concepts were visualized in a spring embedding graph layout to depict the semantic relationship among them. The resulting graph layout serves as an aid to users for retrieving documents. An online archive containing the contents of D-Lib Magazine from July 1995 to May 2002 was used to test the utility of an implemented retrieval and visualization system. We believe that the method developed and tested can be applied to many different domains to help users get a better understanding of online document collections and to minimize users' cognitive load during execution of search tasks. Over the past few years, the volume of information available through the World Wide Web has been expanding exponentially. Never has so much information been so readily available and shared among so many people. Unfortunately, the unstructured nature and huge volume of information accessible over networks have made it hard for users to sift through and find relevant information. To deal with this problem, information retrieval (IR) techniques have gained more intensive attention from both industrial and academic researchers. Numerous IR techniques have been developed to help deal with the information overload problem. These techniques concentrate on mathematical models and algorithms for retrieval. Popular IR models such as the Boolean model, the vector-space model, the probabilistic model and their variants are well established.
From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.
Nevertheless, because thesaurus use has shown to improve retrieval, for our method we integrate functions in the search interface that permit users to explore built-in search vocabularies to improve retrieval from digital libraries. Our method automatically generates the terms and their semantic relationships representing relevant topics covered in a digital library. We call these generated terms the "concepts", and the generated terms and their semantic relationships we call the "concept space". Additionally, we used a visualization technique to display the concept space and allow users to interact with this space. The automatically generated term set is considered to be more representative of subject area in a corpus than an "externally" imposed thesaurus, and our method has the potential of saving a significant amount of time and labor for those who have been manually creating thesauri as well. Information visualization is an emerging discipline and developed very quickly in the last decade. With growing volumes of documents and associated complexities, information visualization has become increasingly important. Researchers have found information visualization to be an effective way to use and understand information while minimizing a user's cognitive load. Our work was based on an algorithmic approach of concept discovery and association. Concepts are discovered using an algorithm based on an automated thesaurus generation procedure. Subsequently, similarities among terms are computed using the cosine measure, and the associations among terms are established using a method known as max-min distance clustering. The concept space is then visualized in a spring embedding graph, which roughly shows the semantic relationships among concepts in a 2-D visual representation. The semantic space of the visualization is used as a medium for users to retrieve the desired documents. In the remainder of this article, we present our algorithmic approach of concept generation and clustering, followed by description of the visualization technique and interactive interface. The paper ends with key conclusions and discussions on future work.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.01201222 = product of:
  0.03603666 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Das WWW entwickelte sich aus dem Bedürfnis, textuelle Information einfach und schnell zu durchforsten. Dabei entstand das Konzept des 'Hyperlinks', womit es möglich ist, Texte miteinander zu verknüpfen. Die Anzahl der Webseiten nahm mit der Verbreitung des WWW rapide zu. Das Problem heutzutage ist: Es gibt prinzipiell jede Art von Information im Internet, doch wie kommt man da dran?

0.0080701 = product of:
  0.0242103 = sum of:
    0.0242103 = product of:
      0.03631545 = sum of:
        0.015576826 = weight(_text_:online in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015576826 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.100593716 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
        0.02073862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02073862 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.007689334 = product of:
  0.023068001 = sum of:
    0.023068001 = product of:
      0.069204 = sum of:
        0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069204 = score(doc=919,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Document retrieval is a highly interactive process dealing with large amounts of information. Visual representations can provide both a means for managing the complexity of large information structures and an interface style well suited to interactive manipulation. The system we have designed utilizes visually displayed graphic structures and a direct manipulation interface style to supply an integrated environment for retrieval. A common visually displayed network structure is used for query, document content, and term relations. A query can be modified through direct manipulation of its visual form by incorporating terms from any other information structure the system displays. An associative thesaurus of terms and an inter-document network provide information about a document collection that can complement other retrieval aids. Visualization of these large data structures makes use of fisheye views and overview diagrams to help overcome some of the inherent difficulties of orientation and navigation in large information structures.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 548, 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=548)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

UDC aims to be a consistent and complete classification system, that enables practitioners to classify documents swiftly and smoothly. The eventual goal of UDC is to enable the public at large to retrieve documents from large collections of documents that are classified with UDC. The large size of the UDC Master Reference File, MRF with over 66.000 records, makes it difficult to obtain an overview and to understand its structure. Moreover, finding the right classification in MRF turns out to be difficult in practice. Last but not least, retrieval of documents requires insight and understanding of the coding system. Visualization is an effective means to support the development of UDC as well as its use by practitioners. Moreover, visualization offers possibilities to use the classification without use of the coding system as such. MagnaView has developed an application which demonstrates the use of interactive visualization to face these challenges. In our presentation, we discuss these challenges, and we give a demonstration of the way the application helps face these. Examples of visualizations can be found below.

0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=3366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3366, 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=3366)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0024476624 = product of:
  0.0073429868 = sum of:
    0.0073429868 = product of:
      0.02202896 = sum of:
        0.02202896 = weight(_text_:online in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02202896 = score(doc=1197,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.142261 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

User interfaces for digital information discovery often require users to click around and read a lot of text in order to find the text they want to read-a process that is often frustrating and tedious. This is exacerbated because of the limited amount of text that can be displayed on a computer screen. To improve the user experience of computer mediated information discovery, information visualization techniques are applied to the digital library context, while retaining traditional information organization concepts. In this article, the "virtual (book) spine" and the virtual spine viewer are introduced. The virtual spine viewer is an application which allows users to visually explore large information spaces or collections while also allowing users to hone in on individual resources of interest. The virtual spine viewer introduced here is an alpha prototype, presented to promote discussion and further work. Information discovery changed radically with the introduction of computerized library access catalogs, the World Wide Web and its search engines, and online bookstores. Yet few instances of these technologies provide a user experience analogous to walking among well-organized, well-stocked bookshelves-which many people find useful as well as pleasurable. To put it another way, many of us have heard or voiced complaints about the paucity of "online browsing"-but what does this really mean? In traditional information spaces such as libraries, often we can move freely among the books and other resources. When we walk among organized, labeled bookshelves, we get a sense of the information space-we take in clues, perhaps unconsciously, as to the scope of the collection, the currency of resources, the frequency of their use, etc. We also enjoy unexpected discoveries such as finding an interesting resource because library staff deliberately located it near similar resources, or because it was miss-shelved, or because we saw it on a bookshelf on the way to the water fountain.