Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=2417,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

Object

h-index

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 6560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=6560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6560)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Nowadays, users of information services are faced with highly decentralised, heterogeneous document sources with different content analysis. Semantic heterogeneity occurs e.g. when resources using different systems for content description are searched using a simple query system. This report describes several approaches of handling semantic heterogeneity used in projects of the German Social Science Information Centre

0.0071760663 = product of:
  0.03588033 = sum of:
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 2000, Factiva published "The Value of Indexing," a white paper emphasizing the strategic importance of accurate categorization, based on a robust taxonomy for later retrieval of documents stored in commercial or in-house content repositories. Since that time, there has been resounding agreement between persons who use Web-based systems and those who design these systems that search engines alone are not the answer for effective information retrieval. High-quality categorization is crucial if users are to be able to find the right answers in repositories of articles and documents that are expanding at phenomenal rates. Companies continue to invest in technologies that will help them organize and integrate their content. A March 2002 article in EContent suggests a typical taxonomy implementation usually costs around $100,000. The article also cites a Merrill Lynch study that predicts the market for search and categorization products, now at about $600 million, will more than double by 2005. Classification activities are not new. In the third century B.C., Callimachus of Cyrene managed the ancient Library of Alexandria. To help scholars find items in the collection, he created an index of all the scrolls organized according to a subject taxonomy. Factiva's parent companies, Dow Jones and Reuters, each have more than 20 years of experience with developing taxonomies and painstaking manual categorization processes and also have a solid history with automated categorization techniques. This experience and expertise put Factiva at the leading edge of developing and applying categorization technology today. This paper will update readers about enhancements made to the Factiva Intelligent IndexingT taxonomy. It examines the value these enhancements bring to Factiva's news and business information service, and the value brought to clients who license the Factiva taxonomy as a fundamental component of their own Enterprise Knowledge Architecture. There is a behind-the-scenes-look at how Factiva classifies a huge stream of incoming articles published in a variety of formats and languages. The paper concludes with an overview of new Factiva services and solutions that are designed specifically to help clients improve productivity and make solid business decisions by precisely finding information in their own everexpanding content repositories.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=4885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 4885, 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=4885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In einem Benutzertest, der im Rahmen der Projektes GIRT stattfand, wurde die Leistungsfähigkeit zweier Retrievalsprachen für die Datenbankrecherche überprüft. Die Ergebnisse werden in diesem Bericht dargestellt: Das System FULCRUM beruht auf automatischer Indexierung und liefert ein nach statistischer Relevanz sortiertes Suchergebnis. Die Standardfreitextsuche des Systems MESSENGER wurde um die intellektuell vom IZ vergebenen Deskriptoren ergänzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass in FULCRUM das Boole'sche Exakt-Match-Retrieval dem Verktos-Space-Modell (Best-Match-Verfahren) von den Versuchspersonen vorgezogen wurde. Die in MESSENGER realisierte Mischform aus intellektueller und automatischer Indexierung erwies sich gegenüber dem quantitativ-statistischen Ansatz beim Recall als überlegen

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 59, 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=59)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many Semantic Web applications provide access to their resources through text-based search queries, using explicit semantics to improve the search results. This paper provides an analysis of the current state of the art in semantic search, based on 35 existing systems. We identify different types of semantic search features that are used during query construction, the core search process, the presentation of the search results and user feedback on query and results. For each of these, we consider the functionality that the system provides and how this is made available through the user interface.

0.0064557428 = product of:
  0.032278713 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 2429, 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=2429)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2817, 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=2817)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Wie in diesem Text erläutert wurde, ist die Effektivität von Such- und Klassifizierungssystemen durch folgendes bestimmt: 1) den Arbeitsauftrag, 2) die Genauigkeit des Systems, 3) den zu erreichenden Automatisierungsgrad, 4) die Einfachheit der Integration in bereits vorhandene Systeme. Diese Kriterien gehen davon aus, dass jedes System, unabhängig von der Technologie, in der Lage ist, Grundvoraussetzungen des Produkts in Bezug auf Funktionalität, Skalierbarkeit und Input-Methode zu erfüllen. Diese Produkteigenschaften sind in der Recommind Produktliteratur genauer erläutert. Von diesen Fähigkeiten ausgehend sollte die vorhergehende Diskussion jedoch einige klare Trends aufgezeigt haben. Es ist nicht überraschend, dass jüngere Entwicklungen im Maschine Learning und anderen Bereichen der Informatik einen theoretischen Ausgangspunkt für die Entwicklung von Suchmaschinen- und Klassifizierungstechnologie haben. Besonders jüngste Fortschritte bei den statistischen Methoden (PLSA) und anderen mathematischen Werkzeugen (SVMs) haben eine Ergebnisqualität auf Durchbruchsniveau erreicht. Dazu kommt noch die Flexibilität in der Anwendung durch Selbsttraining und Kategorienerkennen von PLSA-Systemen, wie auch eine neue Generation von vorher unerreichten Produktivitätsverbesserungen.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 906, 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=906)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The need for improved semantic in teroperability between and among vocabularies and knowledge organization schemes is undeniable and growing in importance. There is an ever-increasing need to create an environment by which even multiple portals could be accessed via subject metadata using software that is neutral and available ubiquitously or directly to the user, that could be copied by libraries for use in their own environment. In order to develop or improve a knowledge organization system including emerging options in semantic interoperability, scholars and practitioners need to be able to evaluate a wide variety of projects and stay current with the professional literature. Based on its findings, the Subcommittee concludes that the development of a successful subject semantic interoperability project is a long and difficult process. It requires a substantial investment of financial, human and computer resources. The Subcommittee recommends using the information and tools in this report and its appendices to assist in developing a successful project incorporating subject semantic interoperability. Finally the Subcommittee concludes that since this field of endeavor is still relatively young and immature, it is too early to generate a set of Best Practices that could be used in developing a successful project. We are past the theoretical and basic research phase and into the development phase. Even though there are some successful projects in full production, more projects need to reach maturity and much more research needs to be done.

0.0046085096 = product of:
  0.023042548 = sum of:
    0.023042548 = product of:
      0.06912764 = sum of:
        0.06912764 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06912764 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

22 S

0.003727935 = product of:
  0.018639674 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Über die letzten Jahrzehnte ist die Menge digitaler Publikationen exponentiell angestiegen. Doch die digitalen Bestände sind durch die schleichende Obsoletheit von Datenformaten, Software und Hardware bedroht. Aber auch die zunehmende Komplexität neuerer Dokumente und zugehöriger Abspielumgebungen stellt ein Problem dar. Das Thema der Langzeitarchivierung wurde lange vernachlässigt, rückt aber zunehmend ins Bewusstsein der Verantwortlichen und der Öffentlichkeit, nicht zuletzt wegen spektakulärer Datenverluste. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Grundlagen und Bausteine für eine technische Lösung zu entwickeln und deren Einbettung in die Aufgabenbereiche einer Archivierungsorganisation aufzuzeigen. Es fehlt eine systematische Herangehensweise zum Aufbau technischen Wissens, die der Heterogenität und Komplexität sowie der bereits vorhandenen Obsoletheit in der Welt des digitalen Publizierens gerecht wird. In einem ersten Schritt entwickeln wir deshalb ein Modell, das sich spezifisch den technischen Aspekten digitaler Objekte widmet. Dieses Modell erlaubt es, digitale Objekte bezüglich der Archivierungsaspekte zu charakterisieren und zu klassifizieren sowie technische Grundlagen präzise zuzuordnen. Auf dieser Basis können u. a. systematisch modulare Metadatenschemata gewonnen werden, die den Langzeiterhalt gezielt unterstützen. Das Modell liefert außerdem einen Beitrag zur Formulierung von zugehörigen Ontologien. Des Weiteren fördern die Modularität der Metadatenschemata und die einheitliche Begrifflichkeit einer Ontologie die Föderation und Kooperation von Archivierungsorganisationen und -systemen. Die Abstützung auf das entwickelte Modell systematisiert in einem weiteren Schritt die Herleitung von technisch orientierten Prozessen zur Erfüllung von Archivierungsaufgaben. Der Entwicklung eines eigenen Modells liegt die Einschätzung zu Grunde, dass Referenzmodelle, wie OAIS (Open Archival Information System), zwar eine geeignete Ausgangsbasis auf konzeptioneller Ebene bieten, aber sie sind zu generell und beschreiben vor- oder nachgelagerte Prozesse nur als Schnittstelle. Die aus dem Modell hergeleiteten Lösungsansätze sind zunächst unabhängig von einer konkreten Realisierung. Als Beitrag zur Umsetzung wird in einem eigenen Abschnitt der Einsatz von Datenbankmanagementsystemen (DBMS) als Implementierungsbasis ausführlich diskutiert.

0.0027959512 = product of:
  0.013979756 = sum of:
    0.013979756 = weight(_text_:system in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013979756 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.104393914 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.

0.0027127003 = product of:
  0.013563501 = sum of:
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1075, 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=1075)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

23. 8.2002 11:51:29

0.0023251716 = product of:
  0.011625858 = sum of:
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=2499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2499, 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=2499)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

IZ-Arbeitsbericht; Nr.29

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5787, 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=5787)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.29

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2398, 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=2398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2.12.2015 11:29:57