Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Furner, J."
  1. Furner, J.: On Recommending (2002) 0.09
    0.09489456 = product of:
      0.15815759 = sum of:
        0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841807 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
        0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0538205 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
        0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055919025 = score(doc=5243,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.
  2. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.06
    0.05968804 = product of:
      0.09948006 = sum of:
        0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841807 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
        0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03954072 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
        0.011521274 = product of:
          0.03456382 = sum of:
            0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03456382 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  3. Furner, J.: Definitions of "metadata" : a brief survey of international standards (2020) 0.04
    0.04089543 = product of:
      0.102238566 = sum of:
        0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04841807 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
        0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0538205 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A search on the term "metadata" in the International Organization for Standardization's Online Browsing Platform (ISO OBP) reveals that there are 96 separate ISO standards that provide definitions of the term. Between them, these standards supply 46 different definitions-a lack of standardization that we might not have expected, given the context. In fact, if we make creative use of Simpson's index of concentration (originally devised as a measure of ecological diversity) to measure the degree of standardization of definition in this case, we arrive at a value of 0.05, on a scale of zero to one. It is suggested, however, that the situation is not as problematic as it might seem: that low cross-domain levels of standardization of definition should not be cause for concern.
  4. Ellis, D.; Furner, J.; Willett, P.: On the creation of hypertext links in full-text documents : measurement of retrieval effectiveness (1996) 0.03
    0.03469106 = product of:
      0.08672766 = sum of:
        0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06342807 = score(doc=4214,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
        0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023299592 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency
  5. Furner, J.: Interrogating "Identity" : a philosophical approach to an enduring issue in knowledge organization (2008) 0.02
    0.023455678 = product of:
      0.05863919 = sum of:
        0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032278713 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
        0.02636048 = weight(_text_:system in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02636048 = score(doc=408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Content
    "Empirical evaluation of knowledge organization (KO) systems, and of the tools and techniques that are used to build systems, is a key component of the system design process: our success in building better systems depends at least partly on our ability to measure the goodness of current systems, and to recognize the factors that affect system performance. The basic evaluative question might be expressed quite simply: How good are the representations or models of the world, of our knowledge of the world, and/ or of expressions of our knowledge of the world - that are produced by our usage of particular KO methods? The straightforwardness of this question is offset by a preliminary need to address metaphysical issues of various kinds, consideration of which can lead us into a quagmire of methodological, epistemological, and ethical problems. What, in this context, is "goodness"? What is the fundamental nature of the kinds of things to be represented? What are the conditions that must be satisfied for a single individual thing to retain its identity over time, and for two individual things to be instances of "the same" kind of thing? Where are the boundaries to be drawn between one thing (or kind of thing) and another? Where does one thing (or kind of thing) stop and another start? How can we come to know the answers to questions about identity, and how we can know when we know? How have we answered questions about identity in different ways at different times and in different places? How ought we to answer questions about identity, and what justifications can we provide in support of our normative claims? As is indicated by the conference organizers' choice of theme for ISKO 2008, designers and evaluators of KO schemes contend on an ongoing basis with issues relating to identity, and a philosophically-informed engagement with such issues is an essential preliminary to understanding evaluation criteria for KO activity. In this talk, the utility for KO of philosophical theories of identity is examined, and motivation is provided for the additional use of such a philosophical framework in evaluating the extent to which KO schemes successfully reflect the cultural identities of their users."
  6. Furner, J.: Interrogating "Identity" : a philosophical approach to an enduring issue in knowledge organization (2009) 0.02
    0.023455678 = product of:
      0.05863919 = sum of:
        0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 3259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032278713 = score(doc=3259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 3259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3259)
        0.02636048 = weight(_text_:system in 3259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02636048 = score(doc=3259,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 3259, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3259)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Empirical evaluation of knowledge organization (KO) systems, and of the tools and techniques that are used to build systems, is a key component of the system design process: our success in building better systems depends at least partly on our ability to measure the goodness of current systems, and to recognize the factors that affect system performance. The basic evaluative question might be expressed quite simply: How good are the representations or models-models of the world, of our knowledge of the world, and/or of expressions of our knowledge of the world-that are produced by our usage of particular KO methods? The straightforwardness of this question is offset by a preliminary need to address metaphysical issues of various kinds, consideration of which can lead us into a quagmire of methodological, epistemological, and ethical problems. What, in this context, is "goodness"? What is the fundamental nature of the kinds of things to be represented? What are the conditions that must be satisfied for a single individual thing to retain its identity over time, and for two individual things to be instances of "the same" kind of thing? Where are the boundaries to be drawn between one thing (or kind of thing) and another? Where does one thing (or kind of thing) stop and another start? How can we come to know the answers to questions about identity, and how we can know when we know? How have we answered questions about identity in different ways at different times and in different places? How ought we to answer questions about identity, and what justifications can we provide in support of our normative claims? As is indicated by the conference organizers' choice of theme for ISKO 2008, designers and evaluators of KO schemes contend on an ongoing basis with issues relating to identity, and a philosophically-informed engagement with such issues is an essential preliminary to understanding evaluation criteria for KO activity. In this talk, the utility for KO of philosophical theories of identity is examined, and motivation is provided for the additional use of such a philosophical framework in evaluating the extent to which KO schemes successfully reflect the cultural identities of their users.
  7. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.02
    0.015834149 = product of:
      0.03958537 = sum of:
        0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027959513 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
        0.011625858 = product of:
          0.034877572 = sum of:
            0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034877572 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  8. Furner, J.: IR on the Web : an overview (1996) 0.01
    0.0129114855 = product of:
      0.064557426 = sum of:
        0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064557426 = score(doc=395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Gives an overview of information retrieval on the WWW. Discusses the characteristics of the digital library and the WWW. Explains information retrieval problems in the context of the WWW, and outlines the responses of developers of information retrieval systems to this problem. Indicates how WWW search services might be improved through the further exploration of ideas developed in the field of library science and artificial intelligence
  9. Furner, J.; Willett, P.: ¬A survey of hypertext-based public-access point-of-information systems in UK libraries (1995) 0.01
    0.0055919024 = product of:
      0.027959513 = sum of:
        0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027959513 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    We have recently completed a survey of the operational use of hypertext-based information systems in academic, public and special libraries in the UK. A literatur search, questionnaire and both telephone and face-to-face interviews demonstrate that the principle application of hypertext systems is for the implementation of public-access point-of-information systems, which provide guidance to the users of local information resources. In this paper, we describe the principle issuse relating to the design and usage of these systems that were raised in the interviews and that we experienced when using the systems for ourselves. We then present a set of technical recommendations with the intention of helping the developers of future systems, with special attention being given to the need to develop effective methods for system evaluation
  10. Leazer, G.H.; Furner, J.: Topological indices of textual identity networks (1999) 0.00
    0.0046599186 = product of:
      0.023299592 = sum of:
        0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023299592 = score(doc=6683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    A textual identity network is a set of documents that share common semantic or linguistic content. For example, the textual identity network of Ben-Hur includes the progenitor work, translations, screen play adaptations, and film performances. A network might also include successively numbered editions, simultaneous editions published in various countries, and other derivative forms. This network expresses how a work evolves over time and through a variety of media. Evolving textual identity can be expressed as a set of relationships among the members of the network. Several taxonomies of intertextual associations have been developed for use in information retrieval systems. The individual documents (books, films, computer files, etc.) contained in a textual identity network can be associated through a number of pairwise relationships, and the network can be studied as a system. This basic pattern makes textual networks ideal candidates for study using network analysis techniques, allowing summary measures that characterize networks. Topological indices provide high-level measures of network structure. This paper concludes on a discussion of how topological indices might be used in document retrieval
  11. Leazer, G.H.; Montoya, R.; Furner, J.: Articulating a cultural research program for Knowledge Organization Systems (2018) 0.00
    0.0031002287 = product of:
      0.015501143 = sum of:
        0.015501143 = product of:
          0.04650343 = sum of:
            0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04650343 = score(doc=4705,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4705, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4705)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    17. 1.2019 18:52:29
  12. Furner, J.; Dunbar, A.W.: ¬The treatment of topics relating to people of mixed race in bibliographic classification schemes : a critical race-theoretic approach (2004) 0.00
    0.0027127003 = product of:
      0.013563501 = sum of:
        0.013563501 = product of:
          0.0406905 = sum of:
            0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0406905 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    29. 8.2004 10:38:42
  13. Srinivasan, R.; Boast, R.; Becvar, K.M.; Furner, J.: Blobgects : digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities (2009) 0.00
    0.0019202124 = product of:
      0.009601062 = sum of:
        0.009601062 = product of:
          0.028803186 = sum of:
            0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028803186 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:52:32