Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015172388 = product of:
  0.030344777 = sum of:
    0.030344777 = product of:
      0.060689554 = sum of:
        0.060689554 = weight(_text_:web in 965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060689554 = score(doc=965,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 965, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to analyze users' behavior during image retrieval exercises. Results revealed that users tend to follow a set search strategy: firstly they input one or two keyword search terms one after another and view the images generated by their initial search and after they navigate their way around the web by using the 'back to home' or 'previous page' buttons. These results are consistent with existing Web research. Many of the actions recorded revealed that subjects behavior differed depending on if the task set was presented as a closed or open task. In contrast no differences were found for the time subjects took to perform a single action or their use of the AND operator.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=4100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4100, 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=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.010728499 = product of:
  0.021456998 = sum of:
    0.021456998 = product of:
      0.042913996 = sum of:
        0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042913996 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die British Library hat über eine Million eingescannter Bilder im Web veröffentlicht. Die gemeinfreien, also frei verwendbaren Bilder, die über die Flickr-Seite der britischen Nationalbibliothek erhältlich sind, stammen aus Büchern des 17., 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, wie aus einer Mitteilung hervorgeht. Sie wurden von Microsoft aus 65.000 Büchern digitalisiert. Der Softwarekonzern und die British Library hatten vor acht Jahren eine Zusammenarbeit vereinbart. Die Inhalte von 100.000 Büchern sollten zunächst über Microsofts Buchsuchprojekt recherchierbar sein. Alle Abbildungen sind mit Herkunftsangaben und dem Erscheinungsjahr versehen. Im nächsten Schritt plant die British Library ein Crowdsourcing-Projekt, um die Bilder automatisch inhaltlich zu klassifizieren. Die Daten zu den Bildern hat die British Library auf Github bereitgestellt. Der Code soll unter eine offene Lizenz gestellt werden.

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1089, 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=1089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Probleme für den Schutz der Persönlichkeitsrechte wirft das Projekt einer schwedischen Firma auf, die eine Internet-Suchmaschine mit Gesichtserkennung entwickelt. Die Technik der Firma Polar Rose scannt öffentlich verfügbare Fotos ein, sortiert sie nach rund 90 verschiedenen Merkmalen und erstellt so eine Datenbank. Die Suchmaschine soll in der Lage sein, ein beliebiges Foto mit diesen Daten abzugleichen, die Identität der gezeigten Person zu ermitteln und eine Liste mit Web-Seiten zu liefern, auf denen diese Person zu sehen ist. Bei Tests. mit 10 000 Fotos habe es in 95 Prozent der Fälle eine zuverlässige Erkennung gegeben, sagt der Vorstandschef von Polar Rose, Nikolaj Nyholm. Allerdings schränkt er ein, dass die Genauigkeit mit wachsender Datenbasis vermutlich geringer wird, weil bei Millionen und vielleicht Milliarden von Personenfotos die Wahrscheinlichkeit zunimmt, dass sich zwei oder mehr Personen sehr ähnlich sehen. Deshalb sollen die Nutzer des geplanten Internet-Dienstes selbst Informationen beisteuern, etwa die Namen von abgebildeten Personen. Polar Rose verfolgt das Konzept, die zahllosen Fotos, die sich etwa bei Flickr oder Myspace finden, besser durchsuchbar zu machen, als bei der herkömmlichen Bildersuche. Auch Personen, die nur im Hintergrund eines Fotos zu sehen sind, sollen auf diese Weise erfasst werden. Was aber ist, wenn Arbeitgeber, Polizei oder misstrauische Partner auf diese Weise die Anwesenheit einer Person an einem bestimmten Ort aufdecken, die eigentlich vertraulich bleiben sollte? "Ich glaube nicht, dass wir da schon alle Antworten haben", räumt Nyholm ein. Der Leiter der Organisation Privacy International, Simon Davies, sieht sich durch Techniken wie die von Polar Rose in seiner Einschätzung bestätigt, dass es Grenzen für die Internet-Suche geben müsse. Andernfalls werde die Suche im Internet in Dimensionen vorstoßen, "die unendlich mächtiger sind, als wir es uns jemals vorstellen konnten". Davies fordert eine Debatte über eine Begrenzung der Internet-Suche und über ein Mitspracherecht von einzelnen Personen bei der Nutzung ihrer Daten. Die Verfügbarkeit von Fotos im Internet sei kein Freibrief für massenhafte Aufbereitung in Datenbanken.

0.0052939784 = product of:
  0.010587957 = sum of:
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021175914 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12