Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023732612 = product of:
  0.11866306 = sum of:
    0.11866306 = weight(_text_:index in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11866306 = score(doc=4100,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.63867813 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.

0.019766597 = product of:
  0.09883298 = sum of:
    0.09883298 = weight(_text_:context in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09883298 = score(doc=3250,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5608394 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

0.017760385 = product of:
  0.04440096 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 981, 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=981)
    0.016441446 = product of:
      0.049324337 = sum of:
        0.049324337 = weight(_text_:29 in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324337 = score(doc=981,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Semantic annotation of images is an important step to support semantic information extraction and retrieval. However, in a multi-annotator environment, various types of conflicts such as converting, merging, and inference conflicts could arise during the annotation. We devised conflict detection patterns based on different data, ontology at different inference levels and proposed the corresponding automatic conflict resolution strategies. We also constructed a simple annotator model to decide whether to trust a given piece of annotation from a given annotator. Finally, we conducted experiments to compare the performance of the automatic conflict resolution approaches during the annotation of images in the celebrity domain by 62 annotators. The experiments showed that the proposed method improved 3/4 annotation accuracy with respect to a naïve annotation system.

Date

26.12.2007 18:29:29

0.016139356 = product of:
  0.080696784 = sum of:
    0.080696784 = weight(_text_:context in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080696784 = score(doc=1089,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.45792344 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For many years, the Web became an important media for the diffusion of multilingual resources. Linguistic differenees still form a major obstacle to scientific, cultural, and educational exchange. Besides this linguistic diversity, a multitude of databases and collections now contain documents in various formats, which may also adversely affect the retrieval process. This paper describes a research project aiming to verify the existing relations between two indexing approaches: traditional image indexing recommending the use of controlled vocabularies or free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary, and their respective performance for image retrieval, in a multilingual context. This research also compares image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language; and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. This research will indicate whether one of these indexing approaches surpasses the other, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the image searchers. This paper presents the context and the problem statement of the research project. The experiment carried out is also described, as well as the data collection methods

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The rapid growth of the numbers of images and their users as a result of the reduction in cost and increase in efficiency of the creation, storage, manipulation, and transmission of images poses challenges to those who organize and provide access to images. One of these challenges is similarity matching, a key component of current content-based image retrieval systems. Similarity matching often is implemented through similarity measures based on geometric models of similarity whose metric axioms are not satisfied by human similarity judgment data. This study is significant in that it is among the first known to test Tversky's contrast model, which equates the degree of similarity of two stimuli to a linear combination of their common and distinctive features, in the context of image representation and retrieval. Data were collected from 150 participants who performed an image description and a similarity judgment task. Structural equation modeling, correlation, and regression analyses confirmed the relationships between perceived features and similarity of objects hypothesized by Tversky. The results hold implications for future research that will attempt to further test the contrast model and assist designers of image organization and retrieval systems by pointing toward alternative document representations and similarity measures that more closely match human similarity judgments.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 4995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=4995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 4995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4995)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper discusses the goals and results of the research project Perseus-a as an attempt to improve information retrieval of digital images by automatically connecting them with text-based descriptions. The development uses the image collection of prometheus, the distributed digital image archive for research and studies, the articles of the digitized Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, art historical terminological resources and classification data, and an open source system for linguistic and statistic automatic indexing called lingo.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 5944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=5944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5944, 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=5944)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

There are currently two dominant interface types for searching and browsing large image collections: keywordbased search, and searching by overall similarity to sample images. We present an alternative based on enabling users to navigate along conceptual dimensions that describe the images. The interface makes use of hierarchical faceted metadata and dynamically generated query previews. A usability study, in which 32 art history students explored a collection of 35,000 fine arts images, compares this approach to a standard image search interface. Despite the unfamiliarity and power of the interface (attributes that often lead to rejection of new search interfaces), the study results show that 90% of the participants preferred the metadata approach overall, 97% said that it helped them learn more about the collection, 75% found it more flexible, and 72% found it easier to use than a standard baseline system. These results indicate that a category-based approach is a successful way to provide access to image collections.

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29 (Scalla, M.: Bilder sehen Dich an).

0.0011625858 = product of:
  0.005812929 = sum of:
    0.005812929 = product of:
      0.017438786 = sum of:
        0.017438786 = weight(_text_:29 in 4047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017438786 = score(doc=4047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 4047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4047)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29

0.0011521274 = product of:
  0.005760637 = sum of:
    0.005760637 = product of:
      0.01728191 = sum of:
        0.01728191 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01728191 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, 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=4054)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12