Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011412249 = product of:
  0.057061244 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=4971,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The rapid accumulation of genome annotations, as well as their widespread reuse in clinical and scientific practice, poses new challenges to management of the quality of scientific data. This study contributes towards better understanding of scientists' perceptions of and priorities for data quality and data quality assurance skills needed in genome annotation. This study was guided by a previously developed general framework for assessment of data quality and by a taxonomy of data-quality (DQ) skills, and intended to define context-sensitive models of criteria for data quality and skills for genome annotation. Analysis of the results revealed that genomics scientists recognize specific sets of criteria for quality in the genome-annotation context. Seventeen data quality dimensions were reduced to 5-factor constructs, and 17 relevant skills were grouped into 4-factor constructs. The constructs defined by this study advance the understanding of data quality relationships and are an important contribution to data and information quality research. In addition, the resulting models can serve as valuable resources to genome data curators and administrators for developing data-curation policies and designing DQ-assurance strategies, processes, procedures, and infrastructure. The study's findings may also inform educators in developing data quality assurance curricula and training courses.

0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=2469,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reviews theoretical and empirical studies on information credibility, with particular questions as to how scholars have conceptualized credibility, which is known as a multifaceted concept with underlying dimensions; how credibility has been operationalized and measured in empirical studies, especially in the web context; what are the important user characteristics that contribute to the variability of web credibility assessment; and how the process of web credibility assessment has been theorized. An agenda for future research on information credibility is also discussed.

0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 1244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=1244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1244, 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=1244)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With the recent interest in socially created metadata as a potentially complementary resource for image description in relation to established tools such as thesauri and other forms of controlled vocabulary, questions remain about the quality and reuse value of these metadata. This study describes and examines a set of tags using quantitative and qualitative methods and assesses relationships among categories of image tags, tag assignment order, and users' perceptions of usefulness of index terms and user-contributed tags. The study found that tags provide much descriptive information about an image but that users also value and trust controlled vocabulary terms. The study found no correlation between tag length and assignment order, and tag length and its perceived usefulness. The findings of this study can contribute to the design of controlled vocabularies, indexing processes, and retrieval systems for images. In particular, the findings of the study can advance the understanding of image tagging practices, tag facet/category distributions, relative usefulness and importance of these categories to the user, and potential mechanisms for identifying useful terms.

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=4373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 7.2018 14:39:05

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42