Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.024233207 = product of:
  0.048466414 = sum of:
    0.048466414 = product of:
      0.09693283 = sum of:
        0.09693283 = weight(_text_:web in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09693283 = score(doc=3752,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.

Content

Bezug zu: Bergman, M.K.: The Deep Web: surfacing hidden value. In: Journal of Electronic Publishing. 7(2001) no.1, S.xxx-xxx. [Vgl. unter: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html].

0.022989638 = product of:
  0.045979276 = sum of:
    0.045979276 = product of:
      0.09195855 = sum of:
        0.09195855 = weight(_text_:web in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09195855 = score(doc=2580,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.

0.018582305 = product of:
  0.03716461 = sum of:
    0.03716461 = product of:
      0.07432922 = sum of:
        0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07432922 = score(doc=3189,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Report stellt die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen der Google Web APIs (Google API) dar. Die Implementierung der Google API anhand einzelner informationswissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen aus der Webometrie ergibt, dass die Google API mit Einschränkungen für internetbezogene Untersuchungen eingesetzt werden können. Vergleiche der Trefferergebnisse über die beiden Google-Schnittstellen Google API und die Standard Weboberfläche Google.com (Google Web) zeigen Unterschiede bezüglich der Reichweite, der Zusammensetzung und Verfügbarkeit. Die Untersuchung basiert auf einfachen und erweiterten Suchanfragen in den Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch. Die analysierten Treffermengen der Google API bestätigen tendenziell frühere Internet-Studien.

0.015927691 = product of:
  0.031855382 = sum of:
    0.031855382 = product of:
      0.063710764 = sum of:
        0.063710764 = weight(_text_:web in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063710764 = score(doc=3392,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im August 2009 wurde SKOS "Simple Knowledge Organization System" als neuer Standard für web-basierte kontrollierte Vokabulare durch das W3C veröffentlicht1. SKOS dient als Datenmodell, um kontrollierte Vokabulare über das Web anzubieten sowie technisch und semantisch interoperabel zu machen. Perspektivisch kann die heterogene Landschaft der Erschließungsvokabulare über SKOS vereinheitlicht und vor allem die Inhalte der klassischen Datenbanken (Bereich Fachinformation) für Anwendungen des Semantic Web, beispielsweise als Linked Open Data2 (LOD), zugänglich und stär-ker miteinander vernetzt werden. Vokabulare im SKOS-Format können dabei eine relevante Funktion einnehmen, indem sie als standardisiertes Brückenvokabular dienen und semantische Verlinkung zwischen erschlossenen, veröffentlichten Daten herstellen. Die folgende Fallstudie skizziert ein Szenario mit drei thematisch verwandten Thesauri, die ins SKOS-Format übertragen und inhaltlich über Crosskonkordanzen aus dem Projekt KoMoHe verbunden werden. Die Mapping Properties von SKOS bieten dazu standardisierte Relationen, die denen der Crosskonkordanzen entsprechen. Die beteiligten Thesauri der Fallstudie sind a) TheSoz (Thesaurus Sozialwissenschaften, GESIS), b) STW (Standard-Thesaurus Wirtschaft, ZBW) und c) IBLK-Thesaurus (SWP).

0.015927691 = product of:
  0.031855382 = sum of:
    0.031855382 = product of:
      0.063710764 = sum of:
        0.063710764 = weight(_text_:web in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063710764 = score(doc=38,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with different nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data supplier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies. We also evaluate the effective reusability of OCDM according to ontology evaluation practices, mention existing users of OCDM, and discuss the use and impact of OCDM in the wider open science community.

Content

Erschienen in: The Semantic Web - ISWC 2020, 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 2-6, 2020, Proceedings, Part II. Vgl.: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_28.

0.013273074 = product of:
  0.026546149 = sum of:
    0.026546149 = product of:
      0.053092297 = sum of:
        0.053092297 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053092297 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

0.0123526165 = product of:
  0.024705233 = sum of:
    0.024705233 = product of:
      0.049410466 = sum of:
        0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 5991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049410466 = score(doc=5991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 7.2006 21:06:22

0.0123526165 = product of:
  0.024705233 = sum of:
    0.024705233 = product of:
      0.049410466 = sum of:
        0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049410466 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.012261141 = product of:
  0.024522282 = sum of:
    0.024522282 = product of:
      0.049044564 = sum of:
        0.049044564 = weight(_text_:web in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049044564 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag stellt Einsatzmöglichkeiten und spezifische Problembereiche von Crosskonkordanzen (CK) im Projekt "Kompetenznetzwerk Modellbildung und Heterogenitätsbehand lung" (KoMoHe) so wie das Netz der bis dato entstandenen Terminologie-Überstiege vor. Die am IZ entstandenen CK sollen künftig über einen Terminologie-Service als Web Service genutzt werden, dieser wird im Beitrag exemplarisch vorgestellt. Des Weiteren wird ein Testszenario samt Evaluationsdesign beschrieben über das der Mehrwert von Crosskonkordanzen empirisch untersucht werden kann.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.010728499 = product of:
  0.021456998 = sum of:
    0.021456998 = product of:
      0.042913996 = sum of:
        0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042913996 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag stellt das Verfahren zur Erstellung von Crosskonkordanzen (CK) im Projekt "Kompetenznetzwerk Modellbildung und Heterogenitätsbehandlung" (KoMoHe)1 sowie das Netz der bis dato entstandenen Terminologie-Überstiege vor. Neben CK zwischen Indexierungssprachen innerhalb eines Anwendungsgebiets (z.B. Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften), werden Termbeispiele vorgestellt, die Fächer unterschiedlicher Fachgebiete verknüpfen. Es werden weiterhin typische Einsatzszenarien der CK innerhalb von Informationssystemen präsentiert. Die am IZ entstandenen CK sollen künftig über einen Terminologie-Service als Web Service genutzt werden. Der sog. Heterogenitätsservice, der als Term-Umschlüsselungs-Dienst fungieren soll, wird exemplarisch anhand konkreter Fragestellungen vorgeführt.

0.010587957 = product of:
  0.021175914 = sum of:
    0.021175914 = product of:
      0.042351827 = sum of:
        0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042351827 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:25:54

0.009195855 = product of:
  0.01839171 = sum of:
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03678342 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Vernetzung der Informationssysteme und Datenbanken aus dem wissenschaftlichen Fachinformationsbereich lässt bislang den Aspekt der Kompatibilität und Konkordanz zwischen kontrollierten Vokabularen (semantische Heterogenität) weitgehend unberücksichtigt. Gerade aber für den inhaltlichen Zugang sachlich heterogen erschlössener Bestände spielen für den Nutzer die semantischen Querverbindungen (Mappings /Crosskonkordanzen) zwischen den zugrunde liegenden Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) der Datenbanken eine entscheidende Rolle. Der Beitrag stellt Einsatzmöglichkeiten und Beispiele von Crosskonkordanzen (CK) im Projekt "Kompetenznetzwerk Modellbildung und Heterogenitätsbehandlung" (KoMoHe) sowie das Netz der bis dato entstandenen Terminolögie-Überstiege vor. Die am IZ entstandenen CK sollen künftig über einen Terminolögie-Service als Web Service genutzt werden, dieser wird im Beitrag exemplarisch vorgestellt.

0.008669936 = product of:
  0.017339872 = sum of:
    0.017339872 = product of:
      0.034679744 = sum of:
        0.034679744 = weight(_text_:web in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034679744 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Neben den klassischen Informationsanbietern Bibliothek, Fachinformation und den Verlagen sind Internetsuchmaschinen inzwischen fester Bestandteil bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Information. Scirus (Elsevier, 2004) und Google Scholar sind zwei Beispiele für Suchdienste kommerzieller Suchmaschinen-Unternehmen, die eine Einschränkung auf den wissenschaftlichen Dokumentenraum anstreben und nennenswerte Dokumentzahlen in allen Disziplinen generieren. Der Vergleich der Treffermengen für beliebige Suchthemen zeigt, dass die Wahl des Suchsystems, des Dokumentenpools und der Dokumenttypen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Relevanz und damit letztlich auch die Akzeptanz des Suchergebnisses hat. Tabelle 1 verdeutlicht die Mengenunterschiede am Beispiel der Trefferergebnisse für die Suchbegriffe "search engines" bzw. "Suchmaschinen" in der allgemeinen Internetsuchmaschine Google, der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine Google Scholar (GS) und der größten fachübergreifenden bibliographischen Literaturdatenbank Web of Science (WoS). Der Anteil der Dokumente, die in diesem Fall eindeutig der Wissenschaft zuzuordnen sind (siehe GS und insbesondere WoS in Tabelle 1), liegt gegenüber der allgemeinen Websuche lediglich im Promille-Bereich. Dieses Beispiel veranschaulicht, dass es ausgesprochen problematisch sein kann, fachwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen ausschließlich mit Internetsuchmaschinen zu recherchieren. Der Anteil der fachwissenschaftlich relevanten Dokumente in diesem Trefferpool ist i. d. R. sehr gering. Damit sinkt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, wissenschaftlich relevantes (z. B. einen Zeitschriftenaufsatz) auf den ersten Trefferseiten zu finden, deutlich ab.
Die drei oben genannten Suchsysteme (Google, GS und WoS) unterscheiden sich in mehrerlei Hinsicht fundamental und eignen sich daher gut, um in die Grundthematik dieses Artikels einzuleiten. Die obigen Suchsysteme erschließen zunächst unterschiedliche Suchräume, und dies auf sehr spezifische Weise. Während Google frei zugängliche und über Hyperlink adressierbare Dokumente im Internet erfasst, gehen die beiden akademischen Suchsysteme deutlich selektiver bei der Inhaltserschließung vor. Google Scholar erfasst neben frei zugänglichen elektronischen Publikationstypen im Internet hauptsächlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente, die direkt von den akademischen Verlagen bezogen werden. Das WoS, das auf den unterschiedlichen bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindizes des ehemaligen "Institute for Scientific Information" (ISI) basiert, selektiert gegenüber den rein automatischen brute-force-Ansätzen der Internetsuchmaschine über einen qualitativen Ansatz. In den Datenbanken des WoS werden ausschließlich internationale Fachzeitschriften erfasst, die ein kontrolliertes Peer-Review durchlaufen. Insgesamt werden ca. 12.000 Zeitschriften ausgewertet und über die Datenbank verfügbar gemacht. Wie bereits erwähnt, spielt neben der Abgrenzung der Suchräume und Dokumenttypen die Zugänglichkeit und Relevanz der Dokumente eine entscheidende Bedeutung für den Benutzer. Die neueren technologischen Entwicklungen des Web Information Retrieval (IR), wie sie Google oder GS implementieren, werten insbesondere frei zugängliche Dokumente mit ihrer gesamten Text- und Linkinformation automatisch aus. Diese Verfahren sind vor allem deshalb erfolgreich, weil sie Ergebnislisten nach Relevanz gerankt darstellen, einfach und schnell zu recherchieren sind und direkt auf die Volltexte verweisen. Die qualitativen Verfahren der traditionellen Informationsanbieter (z. B. WoS) hingegen zeigen genau bei diesen Punkten (Ranking, Einfachheit und Volltextzugriff) Schwächen, überzeugen aber vor allem durch ihre Stringenz, in diesem Fall die selektive Aufnahme von qualitätsgeprüften Dokumenten in das System und die inhaltliche Erschließung der Dokumente (siehe dazu Mayr und Petras, 2008).

0.008669936 = product of:
  0.017339872 = sum of:
    0.017339872 = product of:
      0.034679744 = sum of:
        0.034679744 = weight(_text_:web in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034679744 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.0053642495 = product of:
  0.010728499 = sum of:
    0.010728499 = product of:
      0.021456998 = sum of:
        0.021456998 = weight(_text_:web in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021456998 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).